This is ridiculous speculation. There have been "i" and "e" prefixes to everything internet and electronic for years. Long before the ipod. There were "i" products and services in my area as far back as 1983.
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
This is ridiculous speculation. There have been "i" and "e" prefixes to everything internet and electronic for years. Long before the ipod. There were "i" products and services in my area as far back as 1983.
Probably been mentioned somewhere before this post...
(if already mentioned then sorry), but I wonder if Apple wouldn't agree to prevent a future Skype-like Widget from functioning on the apple iphone. If that were developed (3rd party or otherwise) that would essentially make the apple iphone the same (in spirit) as the cisco iphone. Of course Cingular probably wouldn't be too happy about that either since you could circumvent their service. Granted, if you're paying your monthly service fee they shouldn't really mind if you take up your own home (or starbucks or whoever's) bandwith instead of theirs...
(if already mentioned then sorry), but I wonder if Apple wouldn't agree to prevent a future Skype-like Widget from functioning on the apple iphone. If that were developed (3rd party or otherwise) that would essentially make the apple iphone the same (in spirit) as the cisco iphone. Of course Cingular probably wouldn't be too happy about that either since you could circumvent their service. Granted, if you're paying your monthly service fee they shouldn't really mind if you take up your own home (or starbucks or whoever's) bandwith instead of theirs...
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more it does seem like it could ultimately be a good thing if Apple can't use the iPhone term. I think it is needlessly limiting - sort of like if they had called the original color photo-capable iPod Photo the iPhoto instead (I know that's the name of their photo app, but you get my drift). The nice thing about the iPod name is that it is so generic, and works well to describe an inherently multifunction device. If Apple had released their original mp3 player as something like the iMusic or something, it would have been a much more limiting name (frankly, I think Apple is facing this problem with iTunes, as it is a silly name for an app that is increasingly doing more than managing music). I think iPod Phone makes more sense. Also, just looking at the Washington Post coverage, in their headlines they actually called it the iPod Phone and iPod Smartphone, not the iPhone. The iPod name is so well known now that it is probably worse to not use than to try and use iPhone.
I imagine at this point that Apple will still try and come to some settlement with Cisco (I'm kind of curious how things went from them being in final negotiations yesterday to Cisco suing today though), and if nothing works, I think Apple will just fall back on iPod Phone or some other name.
Long term I have a hard time seeing how this really hurts Apple. It's not like this product needs to be called iPhone to sell well. I'm not even so sure how much people care about these product names anyway - heck, my current phone is a Treo 650 and I don't even know what Treo means (and I didn't even pronounce it properly for a long time - I kept calling it a Trio instead of a Trey-o).
I imagine at this point that Apple will still try and come to some settlement with Cisco (I'm kind of curious how things went from them being in final negotiations yesterday to Cisco suing today though), and if nothing works, I think Apple will just fall back on iPod Phone or some other name.
Long term I have a hard time seeing how this really hurts Apple. It's not like this product needs to be called iPhone to sell well. I'm not even so sure how much people care about these product names anyway - heck, my current phone is a Treo 650 and I don't even know what Treo means (and I didn't even pronounce it properly for a long time - I kept calling it a Trio instead of a Trey-o).
Did you read the whole article?
You miss this?
" .if you go to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (kind of like military intelligence but more evil) and so a search under Trade-Marks for iPhone, you will see three documents, an opposition, a search and an abandonment by Cisco .he US PTO also lists two of note, one by Ocean Telecom Services and the other by Teledex LLC. It is pretty certain that the Ocean application is from Apple, but the Teledex one beat it by a year."
Global Guys Global
Remember you are not thinking about this on a global scale. They want to call the product the same thing in every country. Why was iTV changed to apple tv. Our channel three in the uk is called iTV. Its like Burger King in Australia is called Hungry Jacks. macdonalds is so succesfull because it is called that everywhere. Your trademark laws (by the sound of things) are diffirent to our trademark laws there would be no confusion over here (maybe because our lawers are not as good as yours) over who owns the name. Cisco owns the name and unless it is a vastly different product eg bread maker and top grade manure the name is legally owned and controlled by the filer for a pariod of up to two years and then another two years etc.
Remember you are not thinking about this on a global scale. They want to call the product the same thing in every country. Why was iTV changed to apple tv. Our channel three in the uk is called iTV. Its like Burger King in Australia is called Hungry Jacks. macdonalds is so succesfull because it is called that everywhere. Your trademark laws (by the sound of things) are diffirent to our trademark laws there would be no confusion over here (maybe because our lawers are not as good as yours) over who owns the name. Cisco owns the name and unless it is a vastly different product eg bread maker and top grade manure the name is legally owned and controlled by the filer for a pariod of up to two years and then another two years etc.
I agree, Apple is being anal. Geeze the product won't be released until June. Just change the friggin name before you waste more money on ads, web design, promos, and law suits.
Why can Apple design such innovative products but not select a name that ends in a law suit?
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.html
Cisco's Official Comments on the Apple iPhone Announcement
SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today.
Cisco's Official Comments on the Apple iPhone Announcement
SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today.
Apple has the iPod
They don't have the iCar, the iDesk, the iStylus or anything else (edit: iMac obviously excluded).
Yes it would be logical for them to go with iPhone, but then based on that the iPod would be the iMusic player.
Apple didn't have rights to the iPhone name, decided to use it anyway, and now they have a court case. Cisco having released an iPhone that is shockingly used as a phone and also having had the name trademarked in the US since the mid 90s (with help of an acquistion) are very much in the poisition of power.
As Apple has only had the name since...oo yesterday... and they do not have a product in the marketplace they are very much in a weak position.
Regardless of how much the name has been used in association to their rumour only product they did not get the name in the US and have never had the name. Association does not mean ownership in the eyes of the law. Apple will either change the name and keep things cheap, or will come to some agreement with Cisco on being able to use the name.
They don't have the iCar, the iDesk, the iStylus or anything else (edit: iMac obviously excluded).
Yes it would be logical for them to go with iPhone, but then based on that the iPod would be the iMusic player.
Apple didn't have rights to the iPhone name, decided to use it anyway, and now they have a court case. Cisco having released an iPhone that is shockingly used as a phone and also having had the name trademarked in the US since the mid 90s (with help of an acquistion) are very much in the poisition of power.
As Apple has only had the name since...oo yesterday... and they do not have a product in the marketplace they are very much in a weak position.
Regardless of how much the name has been used in association to their rumour only product they did not get the name in the US and have never had the name. Association does not mean ownership in the eyes of the law. Apple will either change the name and keep things cheap, or will come to some agreement with Cisco on being able to use the name.
What nerve Cisco has defending their property against use by our favorite company!
I refuse to buy their products at the supermarket until they make a deal with Apple.
I refuse to buy their products at the supermarket until they make a deal with Apple.
No one "forced" Cisco into the courts; they chose to go there to monazite press that they didn't get. Let's be clear on that.
ROTFL - over on Slashdot - i saw this comment -
"Negociations up until yesterday.
(Score:2)
by Angelwrath (125723) on Wednesday January 10, @07:55PM (#17549674)
There was a report that Apple and Cisco were in negotiations over the use of the name until yesterday, so chances are, this is Cisco going "OMG... cash cow ahead, release the legal hounds!".
"Negociations up until yesterday.
(Score:2)
by Angelwrath (125723) on Wednesday January 10, @07:55PM (#17549674)
There was a report that Apple and Cisco were in negotiations over the use of the name until yesterday, so chances are, this is Cisco going "OMG... cash cow ahead, release the legal hounds!".
protect our brand
Yeah, some brand. "Hey, we took the word 'Phone' and put an 'i' in front of it! Aren't we clever? Give us money."
Hey Cisco, try doing something that isn't so boringly derivative of another company's well-established brand.
Yeah, some brand. "Hey, we took the word 'Phone' and put an 'i' in front of it! Aren't we clever? Give us money."
Hey Cisco, try doing something that isn't so boringly derivative of another company's well-established brand.
iCisco iHad iThe iPhone iTrademark iBefore iApple iStarted iTo iUse iThe iI iPrefix!
iWell iSaid
Thanks I tried to say that ages ago but the i before each word definately put the iMessage iAcross. Holy Crap the i works Apple pay millions for it you will go bust without it.
Thanks I tried to say that ages ago but the i before each word definately put the iMessage iAcross. Holy Crap the i works Apple pay millions for it you will go bust without it.
What nerve Cisco has defending their property against use by our favorite company!
I refuse to buy their products at the supermarket until they make a deal with Apple.
Funny!The articles I just read say that Apple and Cisco were negotiating right up until Monday night, with only a few more "things" to iron out. Given this, it certainly sounds like a publicity stunt on the part of Crisco.
I suspect this will continue for a bit, then a settlement will be announced. Then everyone will forget about it.
Strange beings, these corporate executives.
You know what sucks about this?
Who would actually benefit from the name?
Cisco's product will not do well against other competition and will probably be discontinued down the road.
Apple could use the name for consistency and simplicity. Any revisions would still be called the iPhone.
Any interest Cisco receives for its iPhone will be due to confusion.
Customer: "Oh, that's the Apple iPhone"
Sales Rep: "No, thats the Cisco iPhone"
Customer: "Nevermind"
Who would actually benefit from the name?
Cisco's product will not do well against other competition and will probably be discontinued down the road.
Apple could use the name for consistency and simplicity. Any revisions would still be called the iPhone.
Any interest Cisco receives for its iPhone will be due to confusion.
Customer: "Oh, that's the Apple iPhone"
Sales Rep: "No, thats the Cisco iPhone"
Customer: "Nevermind"
iMobile
iMobile sounds pretty good to me, does anybody have that? Apple Mobile ok too. We call them cell phones in the US, but I think much of the world calls them mobiles.
I think Cisco sandbagged Apple on purpose for cash. I don't like that..
iMobile sounds pretty good to me, does anybody have that? Apple Mobile ok too. We call them cell phones in the US, but I think much of the world calls them mobiles.
I think Cisco sandbagged Apple on purpose for cash. I don't like that..
Yes, some people seem to have the attitude of
'How dare Cisco use their own trade mark"
There are still companies use still use the prefix i<something>.
Cisco had the trademark and used it to name an internet phone ( VOIP ) iPhone.
Trademark or not, I want to laugh - it's so satisfying to see this coming.
Apple has made iProducts since the 90s, and the iPod most notably is white, kinda rounded edges, simplistic styling, and rather expensive. Most apple iProducts are white, and have been.
What does cisco do? Linksys iPhones - white, rounded, basically they try to ride on the iTheme that exists hahahaha.
Meanwhile, Apple actually MAKES THE REAL THING (instead of trying to make a poser phone like Cisco/Linksys did). Cisco sees this and sues.
It's as if Ford decided to bring back the recently discontinued Taurus, but Saturn is already MAKING a taurus and sues Ford for trying to steal the name from them, lol.
Apple has made iProducts since the 90s, and the iPod most notably is white, kinda rounded edges, simplistic styling, and rather expensive. Most apple iProducts are white, and have been.
What does cisco do? Linksys iPhones - white, rounded, basically they try to ride on the iTheme that exists hahahaha.
Meanwhile, Apple actually MAKES THE REAL THING (instead of trying to make a poser phone like Cisco/Linksys did). Cisco sees this and sues.
It's as if Ford decided to bring back the recently discontinued Taurus, but Saturn is already MAKING a taurus and sues Ford for trying to steal the name from them, lol.
Cisco Email
Rally together. We can fix the situation.
Email bombardment.
http://tools.cisco.com/newsroom/contactSearch/jsp/prSearch.jsp
They might just give up the name...
Rally together. We can fix the situation.
Email bombardment.
http://tools.cisco.com/newsroom/contactSearch/jsp/prSearch.jsp
They might just give up the name...
From the moment I played with the first-gen iPod and saw the "submenu" for Music on a purely music player it was clear that Apple never intended the device to be just for music, thus the (odd-sounding-at-the-time) name. It was obvious that Photos and Video would have their own "submenu" one day, but Music was the way to start.
If today's tech existed in 2001, the iPhone would BE the first-gen iPod...it's what the iPod has been slowly evolving into for 5 years, the futuristic vision Jobs probably had for it from the start...but a separate evolutionary stream led to a more advanced species and the good name was already taken. So now the iPhone is like homo sapiens and the iPod is a Neanderthal...they may be able to mate, but the weaker will die off or be absorbed by the other.
Just call it the "iPod phone" already!! It fits with the remainder of the product line naming conventions, capitalizes on the #1 handheld hip gadget in the world, and the "phone" part can be dropped when the feature sets become overlapped in a couple years, just like they did with "iPod photo". Does anyone think the iPod will not get the widescreen multi-touch treatment eventually? Then you've got 2 product lines with 2 different names that look almost identical.
Strange predicament they've boxed themselves into.
Found this old post by me in March 2004 from just before the iPod photo came out...I was right about the iPod but (finally) wrong about the set-top box!