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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,007
17,389


Per Setteb.it, Apple and Cisco have released a joint statement indicating that the lawsuit is on hold as negotiations are ongoing:

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. January 31, 2007 - Apple and Cisco have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.

When Apple announced their mobile phone at Macworld, they named it "iPhone". This triggered a lawsuit from Cisco for trademark infringement.

Apple/Cisco negotiations had been reportedly been ongoing in the days prior to the Apple iPhone announcement. It appears that, for now, negotiations have resumed.
 

ModestPenguin

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2006
437
0
OKC
im not worried, apple will work this out.
cisco was just frustrated cause apple sprung the announcement on them...?
 

Sandfleaz

macrumors regular
Jan 9, 2007
113
0
Hmmm, let's see, Apple received a tremendous amount of free media time when introducing the iPhone .....short while later got a huge amount of free media time when Cisco announced the lawsuit ....and now they are back at the negotiating table ....hmmmm (Apple wins)
 

Yoursh

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2006
326
0
MN
I figured this would end up resolved outside of court. Apple is going to want the name finalized one way or another before June. If they can't settle with Cisco quickly, it's in their best interest to change the name as soon as possible.
 

bearbo

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,858
0
Calling all trademark lawyers...

Can Apple still get sued if they call it the :apple: iPhone? Or can "iPhone" not be used at all?

i'm no trademark lawyer, but if apple loses this lawsuit (which is not likely), apple cannot use :apple: iphone or anything with iphone in there... or anything resemble iphone
 

JonHimself

macrumors 68000
Nov 3, 2004
1,553
4
Toronto, Ontario
I have been calling it the apple phone since it was released, not sure why... I guess I like the sound of it better... but as people have said both in this thread and previous ones. This is win/win for apple... free press from the release, free press from the lawsuit, more free press saying that talks are back on again, then a couple weeks (or months) from now when it is settled more press relating to the settlement.. and finally, if they have to rename it, they wait a week or two until the stories die down, then announce the official name for (you guessed it) more free press.
 

jac.blue

macrumors newbie
Aug 21, 2005
11
0
jphone?

Maybe just extend the "i" down to a "j" - j for jobs
Or maybe sphone, s for Steve:D
 

Xeem

macrumors 6502a
Feb 2, 2005
907
13
Minnesota
It's nice to see Apple and Cisco playing nice together. Of course, Cisco's lawsuit bought both companies publicity, so I doubt there were many hard feelings to begin with on either side.
 

Gosh

macrumors 6502
Aug 14, 2006
349
0
I think it was a clever move by Apple to launch iPhone and :apple: TV together - because it says loud and clear to Cisco: either you do a deal with us over the iPhone name or we just call it :apple: Phone in a blaze of publicity which neatly overcomes the fact that it's been rumored as the former for years which we couldn't do anything about anyway.

Apple were never gonna hold up the launch date for anyone. Clever and bold!
 

bigandy

macrumors G3
Apr 30, 2004
8,852
0
Murka
Apple has a great chance to get the iphone name simply because Cisco played fast and loose with their trademark renewal. They "claimed" the iphone was a working "brand" when their trademark neared the expiration date.

The proof was "merchandised" product was a mockup sticker on it.

http://www.myiphone.com/iphone-trademark-use-it-or-lose-it-13203.php

hehe. you'd have thought cisco would have more brains than that, and at least put the sticker on before the shrinkwrap :rolleyes:
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,698
622
Location Location Location
I really don't mind if Apple loses this one. They were stupid enough to call their product "iPhone" when they knew full well that Cisco had claim to that name already. They backed off the name "iTV" for the same reason (the popular British TV network iTV), and named it :apple: TV instead. Why didn't they back off the iPhone name as well? It was just a dumb decision by Apple, and a dumb mistake for announcing the "iPhone" when negotiations over the name with Cisco wasn't finalized yet.



I think it was a clever move by Apple to launch iPhone and :apple: TV together...

So you don't think that it would have been even more smart to announce :apple: TV and :apple: Phone on the same day for continuity? Would have been smart if they were thinking of moving away from the "i" names.
 

madmax_2069

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2005
886
0
Springfield Ohio
I really don't mind if Apple loses this one. They were stupid enough to call their product "iPhone" when they knew full well that Cisco had claim to that name already.

not true entirely, Cisco's time to renew was almost up for the term iPhone trademark ( i think they even let ir lapse) and apple seen this and at the last second Cisco renewed it once they seen apple was going to shoot for that name. Yea apple should have yanked the name out from under Cisco before they could tryed to renew it. so if they dont win it (which i think they can) its due to apples slow response on getting the rights to it.

its better to see both in talks and not going the settle by lawsuit route
 

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,555
I really don't mind if Apple loses this one. They were stupid enough to call their product "iPhone" when they knew full well that Cisco had claim to that name already.

Not so quick. Cisco missed the first date for their renewal of the trademark. For the second date, they should have supplied proof of a product named "iPhone" to keep the name, but instead produced a photo of a packaged phone which was _not_ called iPhone, with an "iPhone" sticker clearly stuck on top of the cellophane wrapper. This might be interpreted as trying to keep the trademark by deception. And since Apple had already applied for the trademark, and anyone in the industry knew that Apple would want that name, this could have expensive consequences for Cisco.

According to you, it is stupid to try to buy a car for $9000 when it has a sticker for $10000 on it, because clearly the dealer wants $10000 for it. In my book, it isn't.
 

CrackedButter

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2003
3,221
0
51st State of America
Good things come in three's. They should have called it the :apple: phone along with the :apple: TV device and with the name change to just :apple: Inc.

The iPhone itself was expected, but when we saw it finally for the first time it was everything we didn't expect and more. Except the name, which lets the product down.
 

Music_Producer

macrumors 68000
Sep 25, 2004
1,633
18
Funny thing is, I bought the 'iphone' (the Cisco skype phone..great phone btw) and nowhere on the phone (or the box) does it mention the term 'iphone' It only states 'Linksys' and 'Skype Certified'

I wonder if that could come into play?
 

peharri

macrumors 6502a
Dec 22, 2003
744
0
Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

It's not just that the name was already trademarked (legal loophole finding excepting), it's that it's a stupid name that doesn't fit in with their product line and doesn't allow them to provide cross brand association with similar devices.

Look at their current naming conventions, they're brilliant:

Hardware: Nothing after the 'i' refers to the initial functionality.

iPod. A name that has nothing to do with MP3s.
iMac. A name that has nothing to do with computers.

If Apple wants the iPod to be more than an MP3 player, it can (and is) doing it. If Apple wants to redefine the iMac as a media hub, it can (and is) doing it.

Software: What comes after the 'i' refers to a use or related concept, not a Microsoft style "description" which, again, would box it in:

iTunes. It plays music. But it now allows you to buy music too.
iCal. It shows a calender. But it allows you to schedule and record events against a calender.
iPhoto. It stores photos, but has some features allowing manipulation and publication of them.
...etc...

The iPhone naming convention applied to the above products would have been:

iMP3Player
iComputer
iMP3Manager
iScheduler
iJPEGLibrary

Now, you might be asking "so what?" Well, here's the thing. iPhone is obviously a fairly sophisticated platform (the damned thing runs OS X), is it going to be a mobile phone forever? Does every variant even need to be a mobile phone? Isn't it, ultimately, the next generation iPod and if so, what does Apple call a lower cost device built upon the same platform that, well, doesn't support telephony?

What Apple should have done is call this an iPod, or if they wanted to show a generational advance over existing iPods, done so without losing the connection (some name incorporating "Pod")

"iPhone is silly." It boxes Apple in.
 

Leoff

macrumors regular
Jun 8, 2004
140
0
Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

It's not just that the name was already trademarked (legal loophole finding excepting), it's that it's a stupid name that doesn't fit in with their product line and doesn't allow them to provide cross brand association with similar devices.

Look at their current naming conventions, they're brilliant:

Hardware: Nothing after the 'i' refers to the initial functionality.

iPod. A name that has nothing to do with MP3s.
iMac. A name that has nothing to do with computers.

If Apple wants the iPod to be more than an MP3 player, it can (and is) doing it. If Apple wants to redefine the iMac as a media hub, it can (and is) doing it.

Software: What comes after the 'i' refers to a use or related concept, not a Microsoft style "description" which, again, would box it in:

iTunes. It plays music. But it now allows you to buy music too.
iCal. It shows a calender. But it allows you to schedule and record events against a calender.
iPhoto. It stores photos, but has some features allowing manipulation and publication of them.
...etc...

I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe the initial use of the "i" in "iMac" stood for "internet." The iMac made it a hell of a lot simpler and easier for people to get onto and surf the internet. Now, of course, that thought process is long gone. Any computer that can't get onto the internet easily is a rarity.

The name "iPod" simply took the "i" moniker to the next level. The iMac had been around for a while and people now just looked at it as part of a familiar name or logo. It lost the "internet" feel, but gained it's own part of consumer recognition.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.