Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,026
17,406


More information about the iPhone trademark lawsuit has been coming out.

First, it appears that Cisco and Apple's negotiations had continued until 8pm the night before the keynote address. Cisco had wanted Apple to ensure interoperability between Cisco's Voice over IP Internet Phone (iPhone) and Apple's new iPhone mobile phone. Apple reportedly rejected this offer.

Meanwhile, one trademark attorney claims that Cisco may have lost rights to the iPhone trademark last year by failing to provide convincing evidence of ongoing use of the iPhone trademark by the proper deadline.

If Apple can prove in federal court that the Declaration of Use contained misstatements of fact, i.e. that there was no continuous use, then Cisco's registration can be canceled.

Meanwhile, readers note that Apple has been careful to place the Apple logo in front of all references to the iPhone on their web pages.
 

BlueRevolution

macrumors 603
Jul 26, 2004
6,054
2
Montreal, QC
I love that Apple is so dead-set against VoIP... this is what we get for their agreement with Cingular.

God, I love how big business works.

Oh, and the whole " iPhone" thing is new. They didn't have that on the site on Tuesday, I'm positive.

Edit: The disclaimer at the bottom is new, too:

This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.
 

MrCrowbar

macrumors 68020
Jan 12, 2006
2,120
347
This is gonna be a fun battle between Cisco and Apple. I guess that in the end, Apple will have lots of free press in the media and the the iPhone name anyway.

Even though I don't really like "iPhone" as a name for the revolutionary device that that thing is likely to become, I'm really starting to cheer for Apple to get it now. The Apple next to the iPhone name has been there from the start by the way. i though it was weird at first. Maybe Apple Inc could change to "Apple i" and just release the "phone". Apple i Phone, problem solved :p
 

musiclover137

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2005
104
0
I agree, that apple is going with cisco losing the rights to iPhone. I know a little about copyrights and you do have to send in some sort of evidence of use at some point to prove you are using the copyright.

And the apple logo+ iPhone appears sometimes, but not everytime on the pages. Let's not over-generalize. The first word under each section for instance, does not have the logo in front of it. As well as the tab at the top of the page and countless other times...so please let's not say "all references" when that is clearly incorrect.
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name
Cisco claims Apple used phony company to get name


what this all boils down to is:

What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.


It comes down to VOIP. Something that I'm 3000% certain Cingular is not only opposed to, but would rather lop off their their collective wang to avoid.
So what do we have here? Apple doing thy bidding my master. Until 2009 Apple is Cingular's *cough* "friend". The more I read about the iPhone the more I want to throw-up. Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate.
pukeface.gif
 

mymacluvsme

macrumors member
Jan 13, 2006
32
0
concrete jungle
I love that Apple is so dead-set against VoIP... this is what we get for their agreement with Cingular.

God, I love how big business works.

Oh, and the whole " iPhone" thing is new. They didn't have that on the site on Tuesday, I'm positive.

Edit: The disclaimer at the bottom is new, too:

The "  iPhone" and the disclaimer were there from the beginning. Nothing new here.
 

Object-X

macrumors 6502a
Aug 3, 2004
632
1
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name
Cisco claims Apple used phony company to get name

Why characterize it as "low ball"? Cisco hasn't used the name until just recently and it's obvious that the only reason they are is because of the success Apple has had with it's iMac, iPod, iTunes, ect. Apple popularized and brought the 'i' branding into the common vernacular. Cisco doesn't need it and they have been sitting on this name for just an occasion like this. Sounds to me like Apple tried nice to license it from them and Cisco took it too far; so Apple told them to f-off we'll see you in court. I'd say it was Cisco being overly oppertunistic when they are on such shakey ground. I hope Apple wins this.
 

dAlen

macrumors regular
Dec 13, 2006
177
0
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name

It comes down to VOIP. Something that I'm 3000% certain Cingular is not only opposed to, but would rather lop off their their collective wang to avoid.

Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate.
pukeface.gif

You pretty much summed it up.
I like the quote (not included in my post, but in original posters), from Cisco.
"We did not want money, etc. just keep it open."
Apple used to be like this...no longer, welcome the new Microsoft.
Bill Gates steps down, and Apple becomes what it used to be "against".

I truly hope Apples ipod/iphone flops if they continue to act in the manner they are...locking out VOIP, etc. No downloading iTunes from your ipod/iphone even...or the lack of ability to use your itunes songs for ringtones, etc.

Come on...this is too much guys.
Cingular, or New ATT&T...get a life.

The dude that came out on stage for Cingular looked like the typical fuddy duddy, overlord of "squeeze it out of them", and STeve looked so gleefully up, like "oh, my master, I am now part of the business elite".

:D

Seriously, peoples voice are able to be be heard through the internet...and let them be heard. Maybe one will rise that will not try to squeeze every last penny out of people, and still have the nice gui elements of an apple computer device, etc.

Peace

dAlen
 

1984

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2005
592
148
Cisco had wanted Apple to ensure interoperability between Cisco's Voice over IP Internet Phone (iPhone) and Apple's new iPhone mobile phone. Apple reportedly rejected this offer.


How exactly would the two phones interoperate? Why would I want to use two phones to do the job of one?
 

davidg4781

macrumors 68020
Oct 28, 2006
2,461
277
Alice, TX
I think y'all have it backwards. Personally, I think Cingular is bowing to Apple. Look at everything about it. Whenever iPhone is mentioned somewhere, there are something like 200 replies in less than a day. No other news I know of, except for the FairTax, has generated this much excitement from pretty much everywhere. The market wants this phone, both Mac and PC users. Even on the Treo sites, a lot are talking about abandoning their beloved Treos to move to the iPhone.

As far as the name, it could just be a code name, like the iTV was. It might end up being ApplePhone. If I'm not mistaken, when Steve talked about the iTV a few months back, he called it the iTV. I also think, during the keynote, he said "They're calling it the iPhone." I could be wrong, since I saw a post somewhere or other stating he said "We're calling it the iPhone," but either way, that doesn't sound like a definite name for it, to me at least. I guess time will tell.

Personally, I could care less. Cingular in my area bites and I get a corporate discount with Sprint. A phone, as great as it is, won't get me to switch. With my Treo 650, I'm about 90% happy, and I think when I completely move to Macs and off of PCs, it'll help bring it up to about 94%. As far as hardware, though, I'm about 60%, FWIW.
 

gh0sted

macrumors newbie
Jun 25, 2006
20
0
I don't think Apple is bowing to Cingular on this one either. Cingular was the one who had to change their network for the "iPhone" and Cingular was the one that had to accept the 4/8GB on board memory.

What I mean by accept the on board memory, is all other phones come with very limited capacity for one reason. So you can't just load them with everything and go. They want you to use their download service and they rape you with that $2-$3 fee (compared to iTunes or ripping your own CD).

Cingular is very much giving up on their hopes to sell music over their network just to get this phone. I also think Apple wants nothing to do with VOIP when it directly competes with a market they are gunning for. Yes they could release their own hardware for VOIP but realistically they'd be building it for only Mac users which is a drop in the sea compared to cellphone users.

I don't much care to download from iTunes on the "go" either. I'd rather not waste minutes loading a 8GB player over my network when I could load my entire collection while I sleep at night at not rated charge. Not to mention it'd probably take forever to download an entire movie to a phone over a network.

On a last note, Cingular does suck, but I'd still get the iPhone once my contract expires with T-Mobile in December. :)
 

nosarious

macrumors newbie
Jun 21, 2005
2
0
Edmonton
well...

How exactly would the two phones interoperate? Why would I want to use two phones to do the job of one?

Basically, you are at home and you want to make a phone call. You whip out your iphone, it connects to your computer by bluetooth and you make a call over the internet, long distance, to that far-flung relative in Britain who struck it rich to hit them up for money so you can get that awesome operation you always wanted to make your nose bigger.

or something. Anyways, this becomes more of an in-house portable internet phone than the ones you have now. I can see how this could become more of a home appliance than just acell phone. Especially is using it over the internet saves you cell-coverage costs with the various tech that the phone can use.

But I can also see Apple's point of view as well. If a company is playing hardball (and why else would they be doing that up until the opening of Macworld) and has you over the barrel, do you delay your product and launch and disappoint countless people? Or do you call that companie's bluff?
 

hob

macrumors 68010
Oct 4, 2003
2,004
0
London, UK
I would rather see a 3G iPhone (eventually) with Skype built in. It would use WiFi where available, and then the 3G data connection otherwise! Hear that cisco?! Skype!
 

bignumbers

macrumors regular
May 9, 2002
206
0
Apple Phone it is then!

When Steve introduced the Apple TV, I figured the phone would be called the Apple Phone. I think that's a better name, and differentiates it from the iWhatever which has been wildly overused by non-Apple companies.

If it turns out Apple can't put the trademark issue to bed by June that's a possible way out.

The interoperability demand makes sense as a dealbreaker. Cisco trying to jump on the bandwagon of Apple success.
 

aLoC

macrumors 6502a
Nov 10, 2006
726
0
Apple has a crack team of lawyers, beat the Beatles. If I was Cisco I would settle.
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
NO company gets into a 2 year exclusive contract, with no ability to allow unlocked phones, witout being held over a barrel of some form or another. Sorry but this sounds very much like Cingular were the ones pulling the strings on this deal. WHich has been my assumption as to what was going to happen since day one.
The iPod had a massive following when the labels came to Apple or Apple came to them. Apple was in a situation to dictate terms. In this case while I'm not doubting that Cingular is going to get a lot of new signups because of the iPhone I HIGHLY doubt it would be a make or break situation for them if Apple went with...say T Mobile. To put it another way. Cingular has more to offer Apple then Apple has to offer them. Apple is the new kid on the block with a nifty idea.
I'm going to be frank, I've talked to about a dozen iPod carrying people in the last few days. Not a single one. Not one is interested in the iPhone. The reasons are varied but there is some aspect that they don't like about it. Now that I learned that you need to sign up for an additional 2 years if you get this thing....I expect even the Cingular customers I know are going to be iffy on it.
 
The fine line

There is a fine line between hype, and having something shoved down you're throat.

The more I hear of this phone the lower my opinion is of Apple.

It's now entering over-hype and my distaste for the iPhone is growing.

edit: Also if Apple dicks around with this iPhone to the point they take their eyes off the Mac platform I will be looking at Windows Vista. At least MS makes it appear that they are still interested in computers even when they enter new markets. The coolness of Apple is starting to fade with me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.