Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Cisco Suing Apple For iPhone Trademark Infringement

Gurutech said:
even M$ doesn't do things like this.
Apple is trying to steal the trademark.
We are Apple fans. I understand urge to defend Apple Inc. However, Cisco is right on this one.
Would you feel ok if M$ decide to use iMac or iPod trademark without negotiation (well such negotiation is impossible but oh well) and announce iMac or iPod as their own product?
This act is definitely illegal.
I consider it worse than M$ including IE in Windows as bundle.
Click to expand...

First, we haven't heard all the details of it. Cisco had implied yesterday that they were in negotiations with Apple, so it is curious at least that things have changed.

And seriously, worse than MS's bundling of IE in order to push out Netscape? That is seriously exaggerating things.
 
?

Duh!
Shouldn't it be the iTelephone anyway...

Also iMobile sounds like something you hang above a baby's crib...

I know in Germany, the call a cell phone/mobile a "handy" - so how about

iHandy?

or

iCell?

or...
iDontCare....
 
Zadillo said:
I don't get this though, why did Cisco imply on the 9th then that negotiations were almost done, if they are now saying Apple never negotiated? Something doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

sounds like they later both tried, remember apple tried to get trademark with a front company back in Spet. 06, and they were talking this Monday.

Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel at Cisco said in an interview that the companies were close to finalizing a deal Monday night that would have allowed both Cisco and Apple to use the iPhone name. One aspect of the agreement called for some sort of technical interoperability between Cisco's Linksys Internet telephony products and Apple's cell phone. Chandler said the hope was that by making the products interoperable, it would help alleviate confusion among customers, who would likely be target consumers for both products.

The companies left the negotiating table at 8 p.m. on Monday evening with only a few points left to negotiate, Chandler said. Then on Tuesday, Apple CEO Steve Jobs took the stage at the Macworld Expo and, amid much fanfare, unveiled the new "iPhone."
Click to expand...
 
clevin said:
sounds like they later both tried, remember apple tried to get trademark with a front company back in Spet. 06, and they were talking this Monday.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I still think we must not be getting the whole story.

I don't see what changed from Monday to Tuesday. Is it just that Apple went ahead and announced it anyway? Why did that kill the deal?

If Apple was going to announce it either way on Tuesday (it's not like Cisco didn't know Macworld was that day, and I have to guess Apple might have been clear that they planned to announce it at Macworld), it doesn't seem like it should have killed whatever final negotiations they were in.

Just makes me wonder what exactly broke down that we can go from Apple and Cisco hammering out the details on Monday to Cisco suing them on Wednesday.
 
Media Stunt

I figured it out. This has to be a media stunt performed by Apple to get their phone in the news. They will change the name to the real name of Mac Mobile or something.
 
Zadillo said:
Just makes me wonder what exactly broke down that we can go from Apple and Cisco hammering out the details on Monday to Cisco suing them on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

lol, another way to say it is

what exactly broke down that we can go from Apple and Cisco hammering out the details on Monday to Apple go ahead announcing the product without final agreement on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

but whatever happened, apple wasn't smart. now they will have to pay more if they wanna use the name.
 
BornAgainMac said:
I figured it out. This has to be a media stunt performed by Apple to get their phone in the news. They will change the name to the real name of Mac Mobile or something.
Click to expand...

I get the impression you're being sarcastic, but I have seen other people mention this in all seriousness. It's like they think that Apple needs to orchestrate this kind of stunt to get press coverage for something that would get it no matter what they called it.
 
clevin said:
lol, another way to say it is



but whatever happened, apple wasn't smart. now they will have to pay more if they wanna use the name.
Click to expand...

Possibly.

Whatever additional Apple has to pay to use the name will probably be peanuts in the grand scheme of things. And if it is more than they are willing, they can easily fall back on iPod phone or something else, which a lot of people seem to actually think is a more appropriate name than iPhone anyway.
 
numediaman said:
Everyone assumes that Apple was ready to go to market and was caught by surprise by Cisco.

I disagree.

It seems, of late, that Apple is the one not ready to go to market. Many months ago Apple announces the iTV, but says it is months away from being able to deliver -- then changes the name to AppleTV.

Now Jobs announces the iPhone, but states that it won't really hit the market until summer.

Sounds to me like Apple jumped the gun because they had nothing else to introduce in January.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the iPhone. It looks great, and is certainly a better phone than the other high-end phones out there -- but does it really do anything new? Can't you send e-mail while on the phone now? (I do it all day long.) Can't you surf the net while on the phone, or listen to tunes? (I'll admit that multitouch is great, but it could have been introduced in the next gen of iPods just as easily.)

In the end, Cisco and Apple will settle and Apple will get their one percent of the phone market. Yippee.
Click to expand...

Apple was concerned the iTV violated a British trademark.

It was released as APPLE TV. Britain has expensive and extended legal BS.

Apple was concerned about the minimal and slight possibility its filed trademark in the category of its product might conflict with a trademark in a different category with Cisco, who, let's face it, makes the internet itself work, and filed this treademark in the USA after Apple filed its first international iPhone trademark to preempt Appple and set up this later DRAMA.

Fine.

Cisco needs the money!

We get it.

Apple might rename it APPLE Phone to bypass the drama or might stick with actual filed, approved rights to its trademark, as filed, just to make a legal point.

Apple might be justified to do so, and Cisco might be an *******, but as I see it Cisco needs to take the last APPLE offer as good.

Rocketman
 
pilotzen said:
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

sorry if its been posted prior :)
Click to expand...

nice. This says it all:

So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had substantive communications from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. 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.
Click to expand...

Steve wont share the iPhone technology with you just because you own the trademark.

Lets just call it iPod Mobile :) or something like iPod X :)
 
And Eye TV, as well as ITV

Why on Earth should Cisco take Apple's last offer?!!! Apple used Cisco's trademark without agreement! Apple are in the wrong!

Cisco had the iPhone trademark first, before Apple ever did!! I don't know where you get your information from. [EDIT: I think your being sarcastic! :) ]

From the above link:
"Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year."


Rocketman said:
Apple was concerned the iTV violated a British trademark.

It was released as APPLE TV. Britain has expensive and extended legal BS.

Apple was concerned about the minimal and slight possibility its filed trademark in the category of its product might conflict with a trademark in a different category with Cisco, who, let's face it, makes the internet itself work, and filed this treademark in the USA after Apple filed its first international iPhone trademark to preempt Appple and set up this later DRAMA.

Fine.

Cisco needs the money!

We get it.

Apple might rename it APPLE Phone to bypass the drama or might stick with actual filed, approved rights to its trademark, as filed, just to make a legal point.

Apple might be justified to do so, and Cisco might be an *******, but as I see it Cisco needs to take the last APPLE offer as good.

Rocketman
Click to expand...
 
Zadillo said:
First, we haven't heard all the details of it. Cisco had implied yesterday that they were in negotiations with Apple, so it is curious at least that things have changed.

And seriously, worse than MS's bundling of IE in order to push out Netscape? That is seriously exaggerating things.
Click to expand...

Ok. I admit that I exaggerated things way too much without enough details.
However, the poster I mentioned gave me this impression: "if all the companies including M$ do this, why not Apple"
So I got bit pissed off.
Sorry for my comment.
 
If Apple didn't launch the product before reaching the deal, Cisco wouldn't have done what they did. I doubt they knew what the phone was going to be like. When they saw it, they knew a) that by suing, they will get some press for THEIR iPhone, b) that if they didn't have to sue, they would get a share into the freaking futuristic technology the iPhone has so that they can reap into the rewards while Moto, Nokia, SE etc have to scramble to catch up. And lastly c) where they KNEW the Apple iPhone is going to sell, they will grab whatever money they can get from Apple.

This is rather low of Cisco, but then Apple should know better.
 
I think apple has the iphone trademarked in china. also I think apple has secretly setup a second hq in china hence the name change. so if something illegal happen in the us (like backing dating stocks) all they have to do is claim china is now there home, and no one has a case against them in the us.
as they are in china.

I know this sounds stupid but I think it happens alot more then most people think.

cisco doesn't have clue I think......
 
SpaceJello said:
If Apple didn't launch the product before reaching the deal, Cisco wouldn't have done what they did. I doubt they knew what the phone was going to be like. When they saw it, they knew a) that by suing, they will get some press for THEIR iPhone, b) that if they didn't have to sue, they would get a share into the freaking futuristic technology the iPhone has so that they can reap into the rewards while Moto, Nokia, SE etc have to scramble to catch up. This is rather low of Cisco, but then Apple should know better.
Click to expand...

trademark law sue always have benefit, but i wouldn't call ppl low just because they sue the guy who invade their trademark.
 
SpaceJello said:
If Apple didn't launch the product before reaching the deal, Cisco wouldn't have done what they did. I doubt they knew what the phone was going to be like. When they saw it, they knew a) that by suing, they will get some press for THEIR iPhone, b) that if they didn't have to sue, they would get a share into the freaking futuristic technology the iPhone has so that they can reap into the rewards while Moto, Nokia, SE etc have to scramble to catch up. And lastly c) where they KNEW the Apple iPhone is going to sell, they will grab whatever money they can get from Apple.

This is rather low of Cisco, but then Apple should know better.
Click to expand...

Well, as noted in the Cisco blog post above, Cisco had to respond this way because if they didn't defend their trademark, they could lose it entirely.

This is just a necessary action in Cisco's part; I am pretty sure that Apple and Cisco's lawyers are hammering all these details out and something will be worked out.

I think the sticking point for Apple is probably Cisco's insistence on glomming on to Apple's iPhone; Cisco has a lot more to gain by getting to tie themselves into this product than Apple does by getting to tie into whatever Cisco has.

Still, I think we'll find out the results of all this soon enough.
 
flir67 said:
I think apple has the iphone trademarked in china. also I think apple has secretly setup a second hq in china hence the name change. so if something illegal happen in the us (like backing dating stocks) all they have to do is claim china is now there home, and no one has a case against them in the us.
as they are in china.

I know this sounds stupid but I think it happens alot more then most people think.

cisco doesn't have clue I think......
Click to expand...

lol,
1. even if Apple IS in china, when entering US market, they still don't have the trademark in US
2. Apple already has trademark of iphone in UK, Singapore, Australia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back