Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Sues Apple Over iPhone Trademark
lucabrasi999 writes "It appears that Apple may be running out of items that they can prefix with the letter "i". Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement. Cisco claims to own the rights to the "iPhone" trademark since they purchased Infogear in 2000. Infogear filed for the rights to the trademark in 1996."
The trademark information on the US Patent and Trademark Office's site
I've been curious about this one since yesterday. Apple doesn't seem to have any legal right to the name, but could they really call it anything else?
iFirst Post
I don't know... maybe "Apple Phone."
Better to call it "iPhone" and get your ass sued than call it "Zune" and paint it brown and squirt it everywhere.
Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement.
iPhowned!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
iPwned.
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm
The sad thing is that Apple was the reason why everyone started adding i to everything...if I was Jobs I'd just call it the Ipod Phone Edition and tell Cisco to bite it.
Of course this was going to happen -- I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name. Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over? Gee, color me surprised.
And Apple was obviously stupid to use the name before the final documents were signed, and Cisco would probably agree to settle for a really large sum of money (or alternatively, would probably take a really large sum of money from certain other companies to *not* give the rights).
I guess someone at Apple didn't sign on the dotted line last night. What could Cisco possibly be asking for that Apple would refuse?
Alain.
Did Apple expect this? Are they already planning on cutting Cisco a check (after signifigant sales)? Otherwise, the iPwn3d looks more like a phone I'd rather have in 2007, than the hopped-up StarTacs that are out today.
I hope everyone uses a bluetooth headset, or the thing will get really nasty.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
FTA:
Cisco said Tuesday it had been negotiating for several years with Apple over a licensing agreement, but that Apple lawyers had not signed and returned the final contract.
I'd be willing to bet that the product and marketing people thought all was well with rolling it out, and it turns out that "Umm...err...Uh, we didn't sign the contract! Didn't you get the memo?" I think there's going to be some openings in the Apple legal department soon.
That one's already been spoken for, too.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, it looks like Apple didn't turn in the contract after all.
So now they have to come up with a new name. I suggest that they keep in line with their new Intel naming and call it the "PhoneBook". They can even make a version with an aluminum case and a built-in keyboard and call it the "PhoneBook Pro".
Or they could call it the NewtonPhone, but I don't think that's going to happen as long as Steve's body temperature is above 35 degrees C.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
That's pronounced "eye phone", of course.
You can lose a trademark through dilution if you let it become generic, but what about if you don't use the trademark at all? Even before Apple's announcement, I expect almost anyone hearing the word "iPhone" would associate it much more strongly with Apple than with Cisco.
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
iFone is available according to the U.S. Trademark office; the previous owner ABANDONED it.
9 h1ak1.2.1
i sco_apple_8&printer=1
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=
BTW, why didn't the OP use the printer friendly link instead?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_hi_te/c
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Whatever Apple calls it, we'll just call it the iPhone anyways. Let them call it the ip078xcd so we can all just say "fuck it, it's the iPhone".
LOL
I'm down with iPP. You're down with iPP. Yea, you know Wii. Get down with iPP.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It seems that the Cisco people working with Apple on the trademark resolution upheld thier secret pact of the deal whence other Cisco employees and trademark librarians didn't even know that they were in talks with apple when filing the lawsuit!
They've been having negotiations in good faith with Apple, and before a deal is reached, Apple announces the thing and infringes on the Trademark. If Cisco DOESN'T immediately file a lawsuit to defend their trademark, they could lose is due to the ammount of press coverage Apple's new product is generating.
Is this suit just a reflexive response from Cisco's legal team, or did Apple break off negotiations? Cisco might even get in trouble for negotiating with Apple in bad faith. The lawsuit definitely seems to say Apple is willfully infringing. I find it interesting that nowhere in the suit does it say that Cisco ever told Apple anything other than "no." If Apple and Cisco were indeed in negotiations, Cisco should have disclosed that by now.
They'll change the name, and everybody will still call it the iPhone and know it refers to Apple's phone whenever you hear iPhone, not Cisco. Mission accomplished.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Call it iCisco. Turnabout is fair play and I doubt they trademarked that specific name.
In other news the Cisco Kid wants his name back. His legal firm Pancho, Pancho and Pancho are filing papers Monday to block Cisco from using his trademarked name.
and apple phone instead of iphone...
PhonePod is actually pretty good. Or even better, PodPhone. "Pod" is probably associated with Apple far more than the "i" is, and there are plenty of Apple products without an i in the name.
It's sort of late to change it now, but by no means too late... I can see Jobs selling the new name already: "And we here at Apple are thinking so far into the future, we've decided to drop the "i" that we innovated to the industry in 1998 since we're doing much more than "i" could possibly express. Boom, it's gone. Goodbye "i", welcome LifePod. Look, it's small and shiny!" *Audience hemorrhages from too much excitement*
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!". They held out on agreeing to license the name to Apple because they know that they can now sue for millions.
h tml
:)
Anyone know what the Cisco iPhone is? It's a Skype phone. That's it.
I found this on Cisco's site after searching for "iPhone" on their search engine:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.
"News Release
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."
The Linksys iPhone is also a "featured product" on Cisco's site right now, which seems like a desperate attempt to get any attention amongst the public over its own iPhone. Apple, in one day, gained more public awareness of its iPhone than Cisco or LinkSys ever did.
I swear, if Apple introduces another iSomething product line, I'm gonna fucking kill them!R#@(%
As someone already mentioned,$#%S they weren't even the first/only ones to start using iSomething, thankfully almost everybody else who tried it were smart enough to drop it after a few product releases.
$#^)&@#$&(^#4BBBZZZZZZZ
OH! Looks like the RDF was malfunctioning! You suck Cisco! If Apple wants to name their phone iPhone, you should bend over and let them! If the Cisco people only understood the hidden genius of this naming scheme, they'd hand over the rights voluntarily.
Sweet Motorola Ming.
It Can do a lot of what the iPhone can do, comes with a cooler translucent clamshell case, 2MP camera, FM radio, Music, and more...
And Yes - It Runs Linux.
Cisco, for leading them on, only to demand something crazy at the last minute: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.h tml
Or Apple, for going ahead with the name anyway, hoping to win it in court: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.ht ml?sid=BAC-RelatedNews
When Apple announced it as the "iPhone", their bargaining position weakened considerably; they haven't quite committed to the name (Apple COULD use a different name), but doing so put Cisco in a stronger position. Which, of course, Cisco realized- you'll note the day of the conference, Cisco was saying that they had faxed over stuff and were waiting for Apple to return the docs. I bet- the agreement probably said "all your cash are belong to us."
Even if Apple calls it the QRTB-3000, everyone ELSE will continue to refer to it as the iPhone. Apple may be hoping legions of rabid fans will side with them and Cisco will back down from a PR standpoint. Which I hope to hell never happens, because Apple fucked up on this big time. Apple may try to argue that despite Cisco having the trademark, they haven't used it in the ten years they've had it- and Cisco hasn't quashed everyone running around for the last year talking about how Apple would come out with an "iPhone."
Cisco can hardly argue damages; they have no "iPhone" product from which Apple is causing confusion.
One thing is for sure- this is going to keep Groklaw busy for the next few months.
Please help metamoderate.
I mean Apple using this i prefix crap is getting pretty old. What is it supposed to mean anyways? Information? Innovative? Incomplete? Infinitesimal?
With the last "I" pronounced as a long E.
My guess: Someone at Cisco is certain that after Steve announced it as the iPhone, he's in a corner and will pay more than they had initially agreed upon.
A kind of extortion, really. I wouldn't be surprised.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I mean hey, it is a good thing Apple cancelled the announcement of their unreleased “iCisco” router just minutes before the keynote! Then things would have gotten really ugly.
Why bother.
According to Cisco, they started selling linksys iPhone products "early last year." I wonder if Apple would be able to show that iPhone rumors were already generating buzz by that time. That would probably kill the trademark, since the linksys products only started getting press once the iPhone rumors were ubiquitous.
Maybe when it is released they'll actually call it the Apple Phone? Like the code name iTV turned into "Apple TV" (or, TV)? I'm thinking that maybe the name iPhone is a joke, a red herring. Like playing the Beatles on the iPod, er, iPhone, er, Apple Phone.
>Cisco, for leading them on, only to demand something crazy at the last minute: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.h tml
Where in that linked article does it say that Cisco "leading them on, only to demanded something crazy"?
Apple's baiting Cisco to sue them so they can get the free buzz like this story...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupid rabbit, tricks are for kids!
I googled the lawyer who filed this for Cisco/linksys, scroll down for her list of clients!
Its between 2 corporate greedy logger heads, Apple & Cisco.
Cisco sell a product called iPhone well before Apple came along.
Just because Apple has i's on everything doesn't give it the right to having a tantrum.
But truly, do you care? What's in the name? Call it Apple's Smarty Pants Phone - nobody will care, it will still sell.
Pretty soon all alphanumerics appended to ordinary words will be trademarked. I already missed out on the iToilet trademark.
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
If there's one thing I hate more than bullshite corporate branding and trademark bullshit it's companies suing because of it. I really like products from Apple and Cisco, I own and use both companies products. But here's a big FAH-Q to Cisco and Apple for being retarded. May all trademark lawyers die and rot in hell!
It was used by them for a voip phone. Look it up!
Cisco is attempting to break into the consumer electronics market. It already has several consumer VOIP products under Linksys as well as Cisco's line of enterprise level Telephony products. This may very well be an attempt to quash competition.
I doubt this is a simple money-making exercise on the part of Cisco. They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. Given what I read in the news today this seems more likely to be an attempt to limit competition.
In answer to the parent post, Apple is a marketing company. Apple doesnt make their own hardware nor their own software (just modifies existing SW to fit their needs) so without their iLogo and shiny white cases they pretty much have nothing.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
...the iCantAffordIt. :-P
I just want to see Apple get in trouble with these guy.
One would hope they didn't use the name imobile - it puts me in mind of the old 1980's "portables" =)
Can Apple take over Cisco? Reuters says that Apple has a market cap of $82B, while Cisco has a market cap of $174B, but Steve Jobs has done stranger things before...
Craig Milo Rogers
aMac, aPod, aLife, aTV, aPhone...
Hey AAPL - send me a designer's fee if you use this idea. Thanks!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Well, called Cisco - and they are upset about phonetic infringement!
Sysco had the name 'sis-co' 14 years Before Cisco attempted to take the name 'sis-co'.
Hell, if Apple music company in the UK can attack Apple computer (no relation) over the word *apple*
(prior art 4.1 million years ago - fruit evolution) ,
it seems that Sysco would have a very good case against Cisco for name dilution.
Imagine saying 'I need to pick up the new Cisco router and install it over at the Sysco Warehouse.'
Confusing?
Cisco makes far too much money to be concerned with Apple's (comparatively) meager earnings. Also, do not be too hasty to blame on malice what could be easily explained with incompetence - Apple diddn't finalize their agreement with Cisco, so now Cisco is yanking on the chain to remind the dog who exactly holds the leash.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Back in early 1995 a company called Vocaltec released a program called "Iphone" for Windows 3.1 that allowed PC to PC voice calls. It used EFnet IRC channels for the handshake which pissed off a lot of server administrators because the program couldn't function as a standard IRC client. The only thing an iphone user could do was connect to an IRC server, join #iphone channels and initiate calls with other iphone clients.
It's simple and an obvious relation to iPod.
It's not much sillier than iPod and about on par with the Wii and they both sold well.
For an old job I had some of the Cisco (though they weren't Cisco then) iPhones to play with. Snazzy toys for their time but not much practical use.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Apparently, after having read several articles earlier, Apple had already been in negotiation with Cisco to get permission to use the name before the announcement. An offer had been written up, Apple had yet to agree, but time had run out -- Macworld happened, so they had to announce it, legal or not. Bottom line - if Cisco wants to play hardball now, Apple will, in fact, have to rename it. Likely, however, Cisco is suing them to ensure Apple agrees to what they'd already threw on the table. In light of (apple)TV, the most likely alternative would seem to be (apple)Phone. But, it sounds like Cisco really doesn't care much, but wants Apple to sign what they already proposed (whatever those terms were... articles were not clear.)
Apple probably already have a totally different real name for this device. They use 'iPhone' now as a way to keep a legal buzz going for the next 6 months until they are ready to ship the real product and reveil a totally new and cool name. I'm not surprised if Cisco is in on this lawyer marketing ploy to generate press for Linksys' iPhone product too. Apple probably decided the real name 2 years ago and just sit on it until they 'magically' strikes a deal with Cisco in late May.
Because Apple is not stupid, they don't use a name if they know others have the trademark. They obviously know the power of patents since 'boy have they patented' the new technology of this device.
I predict the real name to be: ApplePhone, as in AppleTV
Apple won't even ship the thing until June at the earliest. Cisco is asking for an injunction against shipping. Apple probably planned to call it something else all along but now they are going to get buckets more press coverage because of Cisco suing them, all at very little cost to them.
A friend inside apple said "yeah, they've already agreed to a $8mil settlement".
I believe that a trademark holder must vigorously defend their trademark from infringement, otherwise they can lose it.
It's still possible that Apple/Cisco are in final talks over details of the trademark "iPhone" (both "playing nice"/with the assumption that a final deal will be reached), but the Cisco lawyers are just doing what they are supposed to do - even though they have no intention of suing Apple over it.
Just a thought.
Yeah, just like how everyone said they were going to call the Wii by it's first name. What was that name again? The revolution? Can't seem to remember anymore now that everybody calls it "the Wii."
Why not call it the IPHN?
I'm guessing Cisco's defense against that counterclaim will be that they had been in negotiations for years with Apple, and that's why they didn't write C&Ds to the various rumor sites, etc. If anyone needed to write C&Ds, it was Apple.
It is obvious that Apple, Inc believes that their iPhone is a PHONE and not a computer providing phone access to phone networks. iPhone is not a VOIP but an actual phone. That is what Apple is betting on.
\
They can simply just call it "Apple Phone" with Apple logo in front of the word "Phone", just like they did it for iTV to "Apple TV".
They should pay for the name or the license to it, then they should make their own network hardware and start a campaign like the PC vs. Apple skits. Haha.
Cisco is to professional network equipment as Bose is to high-end audio setups. It has a level of quality, but is beyond what is expected for the price but because of the name, everybody wants it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=5 48igp.2.1
"Goods and Services: IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: full line of clothing, footwear, and headwear"
huh?
wouldn't the creation of iphone.org show intent? it was created in 1999. but i think the main thing is that apple's product is a cell phone while cisco's product is something quite different.
iMobile
iCom (as in communication)
iTalk
well that's about all I have that doesn't sound like some dodgy euphemism.
"The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
iPhone is a terrible name anyway -- it's way too limiting. The iPod is not called the iMP3player. To call this new device (full disclosure: I think it's cool) anything that limits your cognitive map to the "phone" meme is a big loss in the long run.
Apple does not want to win any share of the phone market. They want to own the new market for handheld computers, which they are have been creating since 1993. Everyone has said for years that this will be the Next Big Thing whenever someone can get it right. Apple has a pretty good reputation in being the company that finally gets it right.
The best move from a brand identity perspective is to just call it the iPod Phone. Apple already owns the iPod market, so their best strategy is to grow that market, at the expense of the phone market.
Besides, everyone will call it the iPhone anyway.
Actually, the best name might just be -- iPod Communicator, for the Trek reference. I expect big business in a ringtone that make it play the communicator beepsound every time you turn it on.
After all, wasn't the name "Apple" taken before as well?
As soon as I saw the iPhone announcement yesterday along with the Cisco "we are close to agreement", I thought WTF Apple screwed up here, but not locking this down.
So no surprise on this lawsuit.
You don't get a trademark another company owns just because it fits your hipster naming pattern. So what, should all trademarks fitting the iWhatever naming convention just be handed over to Apple? This is just fucking ridiculous. As long as you're not trademark squatting then the trademark is yours. Cisco actually has a product out under the Linksys brand under the iPhone trademark, so it's just fucking retarded to suggest that Apple should get use of the trademark just because "when people think iPhone they think Apple".
Seems to me that Apple's policy of keeping everything super-secretive got in the way. I'm not saying companies should register product names well in advance. But I wonder if this policy isn' the reason for Apple trying to copete with Cisco on the name.
iJobs would be a great name for an Internet-based optician. Any takers?
Personally, I think the "i" product names were cute at first but are starting to get irritating.
Just watch - the Apple zealots will demand that Cisco hand over the name.
everyone knew the Iphone was the name and was coming out it seems to me that they simply waited for Apple to spend a lot of money on launching this item as the Iphone then went in for the kill.
I Predict A Riot
why are we having rotten news here? are we going to discuss every move made by apple thanks to their iphone? then let's discuss what kind of toilet paper does mr. jobs uses!
Check out Pandora by Music Genome Project
If you assume that the "i" that Apple puts in front of everything stands for "Internet", then maybe you can infer that Apple's stance is one of "We invented putting the i in front of everything". It's not too far fetched seeing that Al Gore is on the board of directors....
iNfo
After all, it's as much a data device as phone.
Other possibilities: uPhone, iCall, eCall, iTech, iWay, iRez, yKnot, oBoy, eGad!get, uThant, oSay, eNuff.
But if they really want to thumb their nose at Cisco, they'll go with the obvious one: iCell.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
This way they can just recopy the name they took from Creative's MP3 player.
Did anyone ever think that maybe, just maybe this is all about getting free publicity for Apple and Cisco? Seems to me that everyone all over the place is talking about both companies, tons of news coverage and pictures of the Apple phone everywhere.
http://news.com.com/Cisco+sues+Apple+over+use+of+i Phone+trademark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html
Jobs also used a BEATLES tune in his keynote, a direct jab at apple records and IP issues, doncha think?
Didn't anyone check the paperwork? This was reported in 'Business Week' of all places: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec 2006/tc20061218_465203.htm?chan=technology_technol ogy+index+page_today's+top+stories
I think the Reg picked it up as well.
If you google "+iphone +trademark" you will come up with a number of citations.
Did Apple gamble and lose that they could get the TM from Cisco? Or is this more proof of the saying 'the larger the organization, the dumber it gets' (i.e. regression to the mean in term of intelligence).
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
>Because Apple is not stupid, they don't use a name if they know others have the trademark.
Right.
Because there was no other mp3 player called the NANO before they came up with it.
Youre either clueless or a fanboi.
Either way....
See The story in the Mercury where Apple is quote as saying Cisco's lawsuit is 'silly' and their trademark is 'tenuous'. Apple is intentionally playing hardball here. I cant imagine why though?
I posted this problem yesterday here.
Apparently Apple didn't meet Cisco's terms.
Now, Apple is in a terrible position. They either meet Cisco's terms, or change the name. Cisco could have Apple products seized and forfeited at Customs for trademark infringement.
Cisco has been selling and servicing products under the iPhone name for years. Here's the original InfoGear iPhone product announcement from 1999. "With just a few simple points of the stylus, you can make phone calls, check email, or search the Web." It was even on Slashdot.
They probably thought that the Supreme Court patent might help them with the Trademark thing.
"We think this is silly," said Apple spokesman Steve Dowling of the tiff over trademarks.
. v=1
From http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070110/cisco_iphone.html?
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
OK, so Cisco may or may not have a legit claim here. If they do, write the check Steve, and get on with bidness. If not, get into a pissing contest for years and more money. Cheaper to do just what Apple did with Apple (Beatles), write the check, and move forward. You want the name, someone else owns it, pay for it. End of discussion. Not complicated. Jobs isn't a fool, he knows this. It's budgeted for already, and might eat even a few percent of the whole deal.
my prediction, a nice fat check is heading cisco's way for the right to use the name iphone. cisco has them cold here, if i was apple i'd just eat it. a few million is nothing compared to what it's worth to use that name.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Umm, they changed name of iTV to Apple TV. Why don't they just call it the Apple Phone. or aPhone. It's aPhone everybody. I spent 600bucks on aPhone I deserve special attention!!
Wiiiiiiii.
BTW, I trademark aPhone and Apple Phone as of this posting and I will sue Apple if they try to use these names.
Sincerely,
John Chambers
tell Cisco to stick their iPhone up their aHole and just rename their attractive new toy.
Mod parent up for iConn! Here are some alternatives:
iSpend
iJob
iSue
iHype
iTod
iSore
iBore
iScream
or maybe the "i" formerly known as "Phone".
Whatever.
Is this sig nificant?
There should really be a provision in trademark law that says the coolest product gets the name. Piss off, Cisco, I want my iPhone. The real iPhone!
Game... blouses.
Since Apple should easily prove via a simple google search that the majority of people have long thought Apple would be the SOURCE of the iPhone, well before Cisco came to market with their product, even though they owned the mark from way back. You win trademarks by proving who the publically percieved source of the product is. You also have to defend your TM, so I think Cisco is doing the right thing to retain some value in their mark while they negotiate a license to Apple. But since Apple isn't selling an iPhone yet, there is no actual source confusion yet. I'm wondering if Cisco can't do better by accusing Apple of diluting their brand, something they should be able to ask for an injunction now ...
Under trademark law, you can't trademark a generic term like "phone." You also can't just add an "i" in front of a generic word to make it a trademark. Apple thus has a good argument that the word "iPhone" can't be trademarked. This cuts both ways though since that means other people should be able to use the mark "iPhone" as well, and Apple doesn't want that. It will likely just pay tons of money to Cisco to use the mark.
Is this really that hard? Runs OSX, you say? What else runs OSX? Macbook, Macbook Pro, Mac Pro, MacMini. Why invite lawsuit when the other moniker is just as good?
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
It's not even a copywritable word.
It has entered the common language to just stick an "i" in front of a noun to denote its manufacture by Apple.
What is an iChair? A chair made by Apple, which can probably play music vibrate and take $734 out of your wallet.
What is an iCup? A joke that Apple made for little kids.
Apple knew http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.h tml they just chose to violate the trademark. Furthermore, Cisco is actually shipping products under that trademark. So, this is a deliberate move by Apple.
If they didn't get sued, they got the trademark.
If they did, they'd get free publicity and coverage.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b123/wobindwonde rdog/sd/images.jpg
Apple Inc. recently beat Apple Corp. (of the Beatles) over the legitimacy of using Apple (Inc.) trademarks all over the iTunes Store. It's probably still running off that high.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Just call the bloody gadget - (hyphen).
Apple NEEDS To Own the iPhone name outright if they want to call the phone/smartphone by that name.
There are some comments suggesting that due to the use of the name already by the public, that the trademark might already have been diluted.
This may well be valid, however would you want to name your trendy device by a name that doesn't have trademark protection?
After all, if the trademark has been diluted, then anyone can call their smartphone "iPhone" - not just apple.
Then I could post from my i-mate iPhone!
They should name it for what it does... Phone iPod and Internet... Enter the PiPi! I need to PiPi just about now after ready all those posts :)
I'm glad Apple does not respect Cisco's binding legal trademark claim here. Because now I'm sure Mr. Jobs and Company won't mind tomorrow when I announce the launch my revolutionary new digital music playing device. I'm calling it the "iPod".
Intellectual property is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley and we all have to protect our property. As everyone now knows, the iPhone trademark is owned by Cisco. We (Cisco) had hoped to reach an agreement to share our trademark with Apple, yet they decided to use the name without our agreement, so we, unfortunately, are having to go to court to stop them from using the name. We still hope we can reach an agreement, but when your neighbor steals your property, you have no recourse other than to call the cops and file a complaint. Full Cisco statement at: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.ht ml
For a tick-tock and more rationale for the suit, please read our GC's blog entry here: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_cisc os_iphone_tradem.html He states, in part, "this is not a suit against Apple's innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement."
iPhone wasn't really a very good name to begin with. I thought the obvious choice was iMobile, being that it's much more than just a phone.
apple could very well just make it MyPhone or MiPhone. the greedy fans will lap up anything apple has to throw at them anyways!
"You see, I really wouldn't think Steve would make a dumb decision like not have the rights nailed down tight before MacWorld .."
Yeah, that would be like, what? Not having the correct date "nailed down" on stock option documents?
:wq
Of course, Apple will now trademark the terms "iRouter, iSwitch and iGateway" and will screw Cisco at some later date when Cisco develops their line of "Intelligent Devices"... Though it is Cisco, so it may be a while.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Or "aPhone" for Apple Phone. I can see the marketing now:
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Like the tiff between Columbia pictures and Filmation over the use of the term "Ghostbusters" in their animated properties.
"The REAL iPhone".
And everyone else can go back to calling Cisco's "the other iPhone", "the wanna-be iPhone", "the iPhone in name only".
That is funny I submitted the same story hours before , and it is still pending .
Here's a company that used another company (Apple Corp) name but agreed to not step into the music realm but who eventually won the right to sell music online, who now wants to have a telecommunication product named iPhone, already used by another company and is allegedly wanting to use iTV which is a well known established television company. Who's next, iNtel?
PodiPhone
iPwned!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kphone
OK, isn't this a sort of obvious thing to do before you start naming a product? Given that we've read that Apple fought a 2.5 year battle to keep the development of this product a secret is this telling us that during all that time NOBODY had the brains to see if the name was unencumbered? I guess the trouble of 'Easy' Stelios to bully everyone into giving up their 'easy' domain names weren't sufficiently educational?
There is, of course, the question what Cisco really wants to do - I noticed Linksys only named a product "iPhone" exactly when the Apple rumours started to surface..
Insert
Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, on Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark:
"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."
Parent post is all you need to read about this story. Lets wait a few days at least before with the speculations.
iPowned
Here's an interesting bit from archive.org's Wayback Machine:c o.com/en/US/swassets/sw293/trademark_statement.htm l
r k_statement.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20060824185939/www.cis
That's their archive of cisco.com back in August 24th in regards to their trademarks. No iPhone.
Now, visit the same page as it is currently:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/swassets/sw293/tradema
Amazingly, there's now iPhone listed. And iPhone's now featured on their front page, where before it barely had any mention other than compatibility statements.
Took them 7 years to update their trademark page. Good timing, that.
Steve, buddy, if you use this to win, I want one of each product line.
Infinity is overrated, Infinity+1, now that's cool!
"iPhone" gets launched as "Apple Phone", written as "[Apple logo]phone" just like they did with "iTV". Everybody in the world from Steve Jobs down continues to call it the iPhone anyway.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
It's a cold calculation. Apple can stall this matter in court battles for 5-10 years for much less money than it would cost to license the trademark. By the time the lawsuit is through, the landscape may have totally changed, the phone will either have succeeded or failed, and the trademark probably won't be worth so much at that point anyway.
as opposed to "iPhone" on it's own, but then again i know nothing about trademark law
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
...because 'phone is short for telephone, dammit, so it needs an apostrophe.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
iTalk?
"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly,"
Yeah, who would ever try to trademark and enforce an every-day word by putting a lowercase "i" in front of it? Tsh! Cisco are so silly!
Remove the 'H', the 'E' add an 'R' and make it a fapping device!
Do not trust this signature.
What I don't get is why Steve Jobs would even want to call it an iPhone. It is more than just a phone, right? Sure most mobile phones have the features this phone has but Apple is going for a revolution. So why call it something old school? Creativity and innovation doesn't have to stop at the naming of the product. They have a great brand in iChat as it is, so why not make a play around that? iChat mobile perhaps. Either way, I expect Apple to be more creative than just calling the device an iPhone. I say let Cisco have their DOA iPhone name that everyone will already think they ripped off Apple for. Then call your product something that is actually as innovative as the features and hype suggest.
True story: The database company Informix (which later got bought-out by IBM) had a product suite they needed a name for. At the time, they were trying to become "The Internet Company" so lots of their products started with lowercase "i" followed by a capitalized word (e.g. iSpy for a monitoring package). They announced a company-wide contest to name the new product. Any employee could submit a name for consideration, the top-ten would be voted on and the winner would be the name. I submitted the following: "iSoar" purely as a joke. It didn't make the top-ten, but it was on a list of "honorable mentions." I was never quite sure whether that meant that they got the joke or didn't.
(oh, and if it's hard to see why it's funny in print, it's because the pronunciation is "eyesore," which probably isn't a very good product name)
i say just call it the (-1)phone, since that is how many I would ever want to buy (for the uninitiated, SQRT of -1 is represented by the letter 'i' and is also called an imaginery number since the answer is mathematically impossible to solve with conventional math). I especially like how its coming out for the 2nd worst rated phone carrier in the US (at least its not on Sprint/Nextel) why people would spend that much money on a POS is beyond me. My last Motorola phone that i originally got like 4 years ago could play MP3s and brows the web too. Maybe Microsoft could throw phone services on their UMD line to compete.
I just trademarked that so anyone who sues is infringing my trademark and owes me all the money in the universe per infringement.
In In fact, Cisco was trying to force Apple to make the two phones interoperable.
LOL
Who would ever reach for their Cisco at home? I understand Jobs reluctance.
With regards to ethics, so long as both parties to the lawsuit are aware of what capacity she represented the defendent in the past, I don't even see a conflict of interest unless she was privy to some sort of information that Apple has a right to withold from Cisco should this go to trial. If all she knows about Apple's insides is stuff that Cisco will eventually find out regardless of who their counsel is, then it's hard to argue that it's unfair for her to represent Cisco. Of course, just the legalities of the situation may very well differ from the ethics of the situation. But even there, I don't think it entirely uncommon for a lawyer to have at one point represented both sides of a dispute. It would be a clear conflict of interest if she were presently representing both sides.
Or alternatively, the iPod Sosumi edition.
Honestly. Does anyone really believe the Cisco lawsuit announcement isn't just designed media theatre to ensure that the words "Apple" and "iPhone" stay on the front page of the business section (where Crackberry users will see them) for the entire length of the CES, overshadowing Microsoft's limping attempts to publicize Vista? Even if Cisco is doing this on their own without Apple asking them to do it as part of the iPhone's debut strategy, they are doing it because Apple knows they will do it. Wants them to do it. The money Apple stands to make from the iPhone far outweighs any legal costs associated with buying the name, under suit or otherwise, from Cisco/Linksys.
---- You are fully entitled to my opinion.
1 - Everyone's been expecting an iPhone from apple for years.
2 - Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark for years.
3 - Most people obviously didn't know this; Apple probably did.
4 - Apple ANNOUNCE iPhone as expected. Fanboys faint.
5 - Apple announce AppleTV and rebrand corporation
6 - Cisco Sue. Become 'Bad guys'
7 - Apple RELEASE device as ApplePhone, strengthen branding, please everyone. Except Cisco...
8 - Profit!
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Apples lawyers are going to own. Cisco should have filed in 2001 when the iPod came out. If you don't defend your trademarke early your chances to drop dramatically. Apple on the other hand defends thier patents with increased vigilance.
- DenialX
iDeclare....
Or, not having the proper FCC approvals...
...Apple should rename it the iPwn and be done with it.
--
best damn apple in the world.
best damn phone in the world.
wrong bloody network, though.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Cisco and Apple need to collaborate so that the iPhone will work seamlessly with installed Cisco equipment for handling VoIP connections while a person is inside a corporation [and thus near to Cisco equipment]. Many companies are in need of such a service. Fighting over a trademark is a waste of time when such large business opportunities and synergies are to be had.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
now they will risk facing a lawsuit from McDonald's
I found this update on NASDAQ.com:
AAPL
Apple Inc. NASDAQ-GS
UPDATE: Cisco Sues Apple Over Use Of IPhone Name
By Ben Charny
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones) -- Cisco Systems Inc. on Wednesday sued Apple Inc., claiming that the maker of computers and media players doesn't have permission to name its newest device the iPhone.
Cisco (CSCO) has owned the trademark for "iPhone" since 2000, the result of its purchase of InfoGear, which owned the trademark previously. Since December, Cisco's wireless division, Linksys, has been shipping a family of cordless and wireless phones under the iPhone brand.
"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.
Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.
"Apple is the first company to ever use the 'iPhone' name for a cell phone," she said. "We believe that Cisco's trademark registration is tenuous at best."
Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."
Late Wednesday, Cisco asked a U.S. district judge for Northern California to order Apple not to use the name for a device that it introduced on Tuesday during an annual trade show.
Apple intends to begin selling its iPhone sometime in June, which provides a five-month cushion for both sides to reach some kind of settlement. Should that not happen, the suit could impact sales of the device.
The lawsuit follows years of negotiations between the two companies, which continued even as Apple (AAPL) Chief Executive Steve Jobs was introducing the iPhone Tuesday during the Macworld show in San Francisco.
Cisco took the iPhone's introduction as a sign that Apple had agreed to Cisco's terms for use of the trademark. In a statement issued Tuesday, Cisco said that it suspected Apple had agreed to terms, and was expecting to hear from the company later that day.
But the paperwork never arrived, a Cisco spokesman said Wednesday.
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," Mark Chandler, Cisco's senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without permission."
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
01-11-070537ET
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
The timing seems more than a little suspicious though, doesn't it? Hmm...
I think if Apple was trying to muscle the iPhone away from me, I'd suspiciously come out with the iCockBlock and follow it up with a reverse triple suplex, too. I think it's all the more admirable if they are in fact coming with this product just beat Apple to the punch. It shows remarkable business sense, and big balls. And in the words of a great man, "I like big balls."
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Might be a conflict of interest for the lawyer or this could be cleaver marketing plan by steve jobs. Any news is good news.
iPwn
or if they still want the 'i' in there it could be the ipPhone/ipPod...
or put an accent on the 'e' - now it's iPhone'
Of course they could just go with something like 'Cingular i9995'...
and the 'Cingular i9990' - same thing without the camera...
how about iPH (pronounced iF)
or iPhod (pronoun ced iFod)
Dunno, but I don't think this bods well for Apple...
Oh man this is just too sweet... Payback Steve
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
This is just the publicity dance. As others have noted already, Cisco has to sue to show it is protecting its trademark. And given the timing of the original announcement of Cisco's iPhone and the fact that Cisco and Apple were already negotiating over the iPhone trademark, clearly both companies knew exactly what was happening. That is, this is no surprise to anyone. Since there is no such thing as bad publicity, doing the dance with Apple is probably no big deal and gets the Cisco name in the papers. There's no doubt they'll settle this to the perceived benefit of both. Though, if I were Cisco, I'd be careful not to get too greedy, Steve Jobs is not the forgiving type.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
iFone is the name to be used.
So here's how the conversation went the night before CES:
Apple Lawyer (AL): We're never gonna get all this paperwork done tonight.
Cisco Lawyer (CL): No kiddin'. I shoulda been a trial law god like on Boston Legal.
AL: lol. I'm not stayin' up all night for this crap. We can finish next week.
CL: Works for me. I'll have to sue you though.
AL: That's cool. The boss will like the free publicity.
CL: Oh crap. I don't have the boilerplate for TM filing on this new laptop.
AL: Lamer. Why don't you keep that stuff on a flash? Here, I've got a copy on mine.
CL: Oh cool. Thanks. I guess you'll be at the big Apple party tomorrow night.
AL: Really, I was thinkin' of crashin' the Nintendo party. I hear the hot-pants chick from those Wii ads will be there.
CL: Sweeet! I gotta meet her.
AL: See ya there then. Later.
CL: Later, dude.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
wasn't it apple in the late 90's that apple sued eMachines for marketing a blue computer with a built in monitor, called the eOne?
does anyone else think that apple, the biggest trademark troll in recent history, being sued over a trademark that they don't really own is fairly iRonic?
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
iMac iPod iPhone iRak iDiot :-)
I would advise Apple Inc to change to the relevant iPhoned, iPhoneToo or illPhone.
Although the latter? Nah...
--------
* Sigh *
It looks like a curved rod with two knobs at the ends. It looks like the handset of telephone I saw in a museum once. But this would like putting a vinal record icon image on a music website or typewriter image on a word processing program.
This is the right thing to do. Go Cisco!
Prior to this news I don't even know Cisco makes consumer telephone. Most other non-techie people probably don't even know Cisco. Cisco can now sell lots of their ugly-designed iPhone. Thanks Apple and Jobs!
the iCan'tbeliveipaid$500forthis.
too big to fit on the box?
Not being a laywer, could Apple be doing this to negotiate a better licensing contract with Cisco? Or could this just be a Homer move on Apples part thinking they had longer to sign the contracts since they arent releasing the phone until June? (hard to believe) Apple must be intentionally letting this go to court for some reason, since they have been negotitiating with Cisco over the iPhone name for awhile now. One would think Apple would know exactly what would happen if they released another companies licensed product name without that companies approval.
If Jobs has to change the name of the iphone, Expect Steve J to tell his engineering team to come up with the simplest, coolest home router/wireless base station ever made just to sink Linksys's home router market.
They have the smarts to do it, and with consumers current frustrations with home configuration they could cost CISCO more money.
--Conversation on the phone between Steve J and CISCO"
"You know....we've been working on a wireless router for some time. I was thinking of just selling the damn thing to you guys cause it's not a market we want...."
Archived version of her clients page from 2004 - for those who like to see things with their own eyes.
It's kind of nice that there's no sense in removing information to downplay it. It's scary that there's no sense in removing information to downplay it.