Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter majiklantrn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course she said that. Do you think she is going to go on record and say we are going to loose?
Shes an apple spokeswomen for chirst sake any words from apple will always be positive regardless of how the case is.
oh geez this debate is getting kind of pointless. what's the worst that's going to happen? Apple changing the product name to apple phone/mac phone/ apple iphone? Apple knew this would happened, they took a gamble and now we just gotta see how it's going to roll out.
yes, it's not a legit way to name your product seeing as another company already released a phone with the same name but there's what should be and what it will be.
yeah Cisco had the name and the phone but seriously, after this week go poll the average American and ask them what an iPhone is. they sure as hell ain't gonna say "ooo it's name of the Cisco Voice over IP Phone that they patented when they acquired company XXXXX" i'll bet you dollars to donuts most people will say "it's the new cell phone from Apple".
sucks to be Cisco but this is business and business is war.
yes, it's not a legit way to name your product seeing as another company already released a phone with the same name but there's what should be and what it will be.
yeah Cisco had the name and the phone but seriously, after this week go poll the average American and ask them what an iPhone is. they sure as hell ain't gonna say "ooo it's name of the Cisco Voice over IP Phone that they patented when they acquired company XXXXX" i'll bet you dollars to donuts most people will say "it's the new cell phone from Apple".
sucks to be Cisco but this is business and business is war.
Absolutely no different than 'Rendevous'....
Very few people knew that Rendevous was a name of a network ( software ) product from a different company ( even almongst macrumors readers - not that it matters) . Just because its not well known product doesn't mean a large company can steam roll over smaller companies and take trademarks how they see fit!
Very few people knew that Rendevous was a name of a network ( software ) product from a different company ( even almongst macrumors readers - not that it matters) . Just because its not well known product doesn't mean a large company can steam roll over smaller companies and take trademarks how they see fit!
Stella, you should be more supportive, Apple is a great company, making great products. Are you sour because something went wrong with your Apple product?
Apple has to deal with money-hungry opportunistic comapnies that are just waiting to rip profits from Apple's inventions. Remember that Apple's margin is very slim so any small mistake or loss in market share can be very bad for Mac users.
I think Apple was trying to make a deal with Cisco to include Skype-like functionality in it's iPhone. Think about it, instead of using your minutes, just Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to some network and make free phone calls! Even international.
So Cisco might be the one to blame if we don't get that functionality.
Apple has to deal with money-hungry opportunistic comapnies that are just waiting to rip profits from Apple's inventions. Remember that Apple's margin is very slim so any small mistake or loss in market share can be very bad for Mac users.
I think Apple was trying to make a deal with Cisco to include Skype-like functionality in it's iPhone. Think about it, instead of using your minutes, just Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to some network and make free phone calls! Even international.
So Cisco might be the one to blame if we don't get that functionality.
Thanks, just read Cisco's complaint and I have noticed, that Cisco is stating they were not interested in giving rights to Apple, while Chandler clearly stated they were about to close the deal.
So in short, Cisco is full of it. And they had this complaint ready day after? Seems to me tha Cisco was ready for this long time ago.
More supportive? Apple doesn't need blind support from fans, they need our money. I happen to love giving Apple money on occasion, but that doesn't mean that they garner my zealous support for every business decision they make.We don't know who the good-guy or bad-guy was in the Apple/Cisco talks, but we do know that Apple does not have the iPhone™ in the US, so a lawsuit was in the making. It's not like Apple doesn't have a its own law team for launching trademark or patent infringement suits against other companies. If Cisco is right and Apple is wrong, then get it over with quick and move on, 'cause I want Apple to have the same success in the courtroom when they're defending the (?)Phone tech and gradually taking over the market with the device.
I love Apple, but c'mon! You don't have to be sour at a company to realize they are being shady. iPhone from Cisco was posted on here a long time ago. That is why most people that have been reading about the upcoming apple phone were surprised at the name.
Seriously?
Infogear registered the name in 1993. Cisco bought infogear in 2000. The iPod came out in 2001. Another important note: Cisco is worth $173 Billion, Apple is worth less than half at $83 Billion. The case can be made that ALL large companies are money-hungry and opportunistic. But Cisco was not waiting to rip off Apple. It is the other way around.
Cisco wanted to continue to keep their iPhone synonymous with voip. It appears that Apple was't willing to do that. So, the negotiations fell short when it came to voip. Seems to indicate that apple wants to incorporate their own voip. But, it isn't Cisco's fault.
There is no difference between the ethics of Apple and other companies. People just like Apple more because they are creative and make amazing products.
Well, first Cisco is trying to make a deal, but when it falls through, they claim they never intended to make a deal.
The fact is, everybody wants to get on Apple's band wagon, even big companies like Cisco, more is always more, and greedy get greedier.
No one really knows
what exactly went down in the board room except for the parties there, and I assure you, they are only releasing part of the story to the media. I find it quite amazing how quick some are to judge who is right and who is wrong in this when no one really knows the whole story. On the surface, it may look clear, but there is no way it is that black and white.
I, personally, think Jobs just did it so he can put the apple icon in front of the phone and then call it, "The phone formally known as iPhone"
what exactly went down in the board room except for the parties there, and I assure you, they are only releasing part of the story to the media. I find it quite amazing how quick some are to judge who is right and who is wrong in this when no one really knows the whole story. On the surface, it may look clear, but there is no way it is that black and white.
I, personally, think Jobs just did it so he can put the apple icon in front of the phone and then call it, "The phone formally known as iPhone"
From cnet:
Longtime Apple watcher Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, was blunt in his assessment of the situation.
"This was just brass balls on the part of Steve (Jobs), to go in there and just grab that trademark and not pay a license for it or negotiate. It's the height of arrogance," Kay said. "He basically thinks he can get away with it."
However, it's likely that the two companies will settle their differences, as prolonged litigation doesn't really serve either company, Kay said. "Apple is playing chicken with Cisco, and there's other companies I'd rather play chicken with," he said, referring to Cisco's deep pockets.
Cisco holds a clear advantage in the legal dispute as the trademark holder of record and having already released products using the iPhone name, said Bruce Sunstein, co-founder of the Boston law firm Bromberg & Sunstein.
Longtime Apple watcher Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, was blunt in his assessment of the situation.
"This was just brass balls on the part of Steve (Jobs), to go in there and just grab that trademark and not pay a license for it or negotiate. It's the height of arrogance," Kay said. "He basically thinks he can get away with it."
However, it's likely that the two companies will settle their differences, as prolonged litigation doesn't really serve either company, Kay said. "Apple is playing chicken with Cisco, and there's other companies I'd rather play chicken with," he said, referring to Cisco's deep pockets.
Cisco holds a clear advantage in the legal dispute as the trademark holder of record and having already released products using the iPhone name, said Bruce Sunstein, co-founder of the Boston law firm Bromberg & Sunstein.
Why didn't you add the rest of it, the quotes from Cisco's Chandler about how close they were to making a deal and the link to Cisco's filing were they say they never wanted to make a deal.
It is black on white.
Cisco was clearly playing a game, they were ready and they expected this. It must have taken days to do a research, and they filed the day after Steve's keynote.
It is black on white.
Cisco was clearly playing a game, they were ready and they expected this. It must have taken days to do a research, and they filed the day after Steve's keynote.
I didn't include the rest because it says, that most likely Cisco is in the right, and has a clear advantage. It pretty much just backs up what was quoted above. But, for arguments sake, here is a link to the rest of it. http://tinyurl.com/y8tp9c
It doesn't appear that anyone is saying they weren't negotiating, which you claim puts Cisco in the wrong. It is clear they were negotiating. It is also clear that an agreement wasn't reached. It also appears that Cisco put up an offer. It doesn't appear that Apple accepted it. So, they just stole the name. Although, it is very possible, as you suggest, that during negotiating Cisco knew that Jobs and Apple were shady and willing to steal their product name. Maybe word had gotten out.
Just because they make awesome products, including the new phone, it doesn't mean they are entitled to everything they want, regardless of who owns it. They could have named the product from a myriad of different names.
This is all a tease. Before it ships, it will be retitled...
The WiiPhone.
Can you imagine a virtual console on that thing? Nintendo ports a handful of old nes and snes classics, puts them up on iTunes. This would work. Hold the phone horizontally, with virtual directional pad on the bottom left, virtual a, b, x, y on the bottom right. Use the accelomowatzit for the l and r shoulder buttons (tilt the phone to engage - imagine that with starfox). I'm not a gamer, but I waste my share of time on my nes emulator, and would be all over that in a handheld context.
I'm not that familiar with the Wii itself, but you have to figure that the phone could have some very interesting uses as a gaming controller (kinda in a ds sort of way).
(this obviously won't happen, but it should. makes 1000X more sense than the next-gen apple console rumors)
The WiiPhone.
Can you imagine a virtual console on that thing? Nintendo ports a handful of old nes and snes classics, puts them up on iTunes. This would work. Hold the phone horizontally, with virtual directional pad on the bottom left, virtual a, b, x, y on the bottom right. Use the accelomowatzit for the l and r shoulder buttons (tilt the phone to engage - imagine that with starfox). I'm not a gamer, but I waste my share of time on my nes emulator, and would be all over that in a handheld context.
I'm not that familiar with the Wii itself, but you have to figure that the phone could have some very interesting uses as a gaming controller (kinda in a ds sort of way).
(this obviously won't happen, but it should. makes 1000X more sense than the next-gen apple console rumors)
I agree with you, trademarks can can be lost if a company doesn't take the necessary measures to protect them. A market research that shows 80% or nore of users pointing the iPhone name to Apple will be a strong weapon to use in court.
I wouldn't be surprised if the court gave the name back to Apple without giving Cisco any royalties. I know it sounds too much, but with lawyers i've learned to never say never, so one never knows...
I'm at work and this seriously made me laugh out loud. I got a couple strange looks from the people around me.
Check this out..
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
I guess Apple found out at the last minute and decided not to go through the deal with Cisco.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
I guess Apple found out at the last minute and decided not to go through the deal with Cisco.
A voice from Cisco, looks like they may have tried to get a piece of the pie, and Apple said "No thanks!"
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
What about that supposed press release announcing a name change to "iTouch Mobile?"
B
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
What about that supposed press release announcing a name change to "iTouch Mobile?"
B
An Alternative Theory...
So how's this for a theory. Apple courts Cisco, leading them to believe that Apple legal's decision to sign a licensing arrangement for the term "iPhone" is imminent. On the day of the hypothetical signing of this agreement, incidentally the day that the actual device is introduced, the day that Apple wants the most possible exposure, Apple declines the agreement, hence forcing Cisco's hand. Cisco sues, taking Apple's bait.
Why bait, you ask? Apple counters, after it is introduced, that Cisco's suit is "silly." After all, the term "iPhone" has been in the public lexicon for a number of years--Cisco's claim has no merit. And here's where it gets interesting. Why would Apple offer a defense that would admit "iPhone" into the public lexicon, and thereby, offer other vendors the ability to brand their product as an "iPhone?" The answer. Because that's exactly what Apple wants.
Think about the Keynote. Three Things. First, Steve introduces the new product as a "new class of device," presumably a class for which no nomenclature exists. Second, Steve makes a point of dissing the entire Smartphone crowd by contrasting it with the new "iPhone." Three, Steve makes a point of delineating the "wall" of patents that have accompanied the invention of this device and that no one would be able to touch it for five years.
So, Apple essentially invites its competitors to a competition where it will have the advantage for five years. Not only invites them, but tempts them, through the Cisco suit, to follow Apple's lead and name this new generation of devices, generically, "iPhones" the way that "iPods" have become generic terms (and dictionary admitted terms) in the public vocabulary. And these competitors, ever unaware of Steve's wile, take the bait, name their products "iPhone," in a space they can't possibly compete realistically in for three years, maybe even Steve's hyperbolic five.
A marketing strategy out of a suit to create a vocabulary for a new class of device where Apple can't lose and the stakes with Cisco are, given the market, incidental (and only if Cisco's claims are upheld, which is far from clear). Not bad for your everyday conspiracy, huh? And everyone now knows what an "iPhone" is and who makes the best one. Not bad for a week's work!
So how's this for a theory. Apple courts Cisco, leading them to believe that Apple legal's decision to sign a licensing arrangement for the term "iPhone" is imminent. On the day of the hypothetical signing of this agreement, incidentally the day that the actual device is introduced, the day that Apple wants the most possible exposure, Apple declines the agreement, hence forcing Cisco's hand. Cisco sues, taking Apple's bait.
Why bait, you ask? Apple counters, after it is introduced, that Cisco's suit is "silly." After all, the term "iPhone" has been in the public lexicon for a number of years--Cisco's claim has no merit. And here's where it gets interesting. Why would Apple offer a defense that would admit "iPhone" into the public lexicon, and thereby, offer other vendors the ability to brand their product as an "iPhone?" The answer. Because that's exactly what Apple wants.
Think about the Keynote. Three Things. First, Steve introduces the new product as a "new class of device," presumably a class for which no nomenclature exists. Second, Steve makes a point of dissing the entire Smartphone crowd by contrasting it with the new "iPhone." Three, Steve makes a point of delineating the "wall" of patents that have accompanied the invention of this device and that no one would be able to touch it for five years.
So, Apple essentially invites its competitors to a competition where it will have the advantage for five years. Not only invites them, but tempts them, through the Cisco suit, to follow Apple's lead and name this new generation of devices, generically, "iPhones" the way that "iPods" have become generic terms (and dictionary admitted terms) in the public vocabulary. And these competitors, ever unaware of Steve's wile, take the bait, name their products "iPhone," in a space they can't possibly compete realistically in for three years, maybe even Steve's hyperbolic five.
A marketing strategy out of a suit to create a vocabulary for a new class of device where Apple can't lose and the stakes with Cisco are, given the market, incidental (and only if Cisco's claims are upheld, which is far from clear). Not bad for your everyday conspiracy, huh? And everyone now knows what an "iPhone" is and who makes the best one. Not bad for a week's work!
Man, if that does end up to be how this all works out, that is pretty damned hilarious. I still wouldn't mind it just being called iPod phone, but whatever...
Bollocks, Apple has something that Cisco doesn't. Brand recognition. Cisco has every right to be litigious in this matter, but you can bet that Apple's brand clout has more than a little to do with Cisco's choice to sue. All the legal coverage of this dispute will get both phones on TV, but unfortunately, I think no matter what Apple comes out on top as far as the exposure thing goes.