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?
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.
This "iFirst Post" is first in the same sense that Apple was first to the name "iPhone."
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.
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; }
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".
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!
Why would that surprise you? However silly we might think trademark law, Cisco owns that trademark under the current law. If Apple wants to use it, they'll have to make a deal with Cisco. Or did you mean that you were surprised that they were still talking so late in the game?
Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over?
I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.
It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.
See what I've been reading.
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.
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.
It surprised me because it would be easier for Cisco to sue and make more money out of a settlement than to just give in. If they do this while iPhone is still on people's minds, Apple would offer a bigger settlement.
Hence my surprise.
I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.
Mind you -- Apple was conducting negotiations when this was happening. If Apple did not trust Cisco, they would have signed the agreement before the final announcement. Obviously, Apple announcing this before the agreement signifies one of two things:
Apple trying to be nasty (like you said).
Or Apple believing in Cisco's good faith.
Since Apple was indeed having negotiations, and given Cisco's legal history before, I am inclined to go with the latter.
It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.
As the folks who made the i prefix popular (iMac, iPod, iTunes etc.), it would be logical for Apple to use iPhone for their phone. Brand names create an impression of the company in the minds of people and hence they are valuable.
My two cents.
I agree. It is overwhelmingly likely that negotiations continue and are close to being final. That said, Cisco is still legally obligated to protect their trademark, otherwise Apple could bait them along until they feel sufficient dilution has occurred, then back out and seek their own suit alleging dilution.
This is just CYA while negotiations finish up.
Nothing to see here...
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
Got it wrong there bud.
Apple was in talks to acquire rights to use the name, but they did not sign any contracts before they publicly released information and began using the iPhone trademark. The fault is squarely in Apple's court. Apple screwed up on this one, not Cisco.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
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?
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.
However silly we might think trademark law
I think current patent and copyright law is silly, but trademarks are a bit different, IMO. I believe it is really is important for consumers to be able to tell that they're buying from one company as opposed to another. Quality control and service are meaningless if others can easily impersonate or cause confusion as to who you're really dealing with. Trademarks do a good job at handling this.
It may be that things have gotten out of hand with the interpretation, that is, courts being too sensitive to what creates "customer confusion". Also it was easier when trademarks were more local in scope, but the internet has kind of blown that. Still, I think trademark law is a greater good than evil even today.
(and this coming from someone who was cease-and-desisted by Mattel a few years back)
Cheers.
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.
Apple's baiting Cisco to sue them so they can get the free buzz like this story...
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 ~
I don't think there is any such thing as a friendly lawsuit, whether or not they must defend the trademark. But if there is, we can be sure that Apple is only getting a license and not ownership.
...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?
you mean this?
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
The only legal chance (assuming the Cisco registration is otherwise valid) Apple could have would be if Cisco didn't use the mark for some (five?) years.
Then the Cisco registration could be overturned for lack of use. And, as far as I know, Apple could then obtain the registration of the mark, by filing a trademark registration application.
But Cisco has filed a Declaration of Use of Mark in Commerce Under Section 8 with specimens.
Other documents regarding the Cisco registration can also be accessed at the USPTO site.
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
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.
\
I swear, if Apple introduces another iSomething product line, I'm gonna fucking kill them!
Dear iCitizen,
It has been brought to our attention that your iPost on the iService called "Slashdot" is in violation of the iCommunications act of 2008. We are sending you this iNotice so that you may report yourself to the Ministry of Love for iReorientation and purging of your iDatabase.
The iPolice.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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+
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.
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
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
(Though it's interesting to note that one of their 11-song albums is $5.99, but each track is still $.99.)
* Warning - an iTunes link.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
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".
The difference is that 'Nano' was a subtitle of the two players, 'iPod Nano' and 'Zen Nano'. 'Nano' is also a general term decribing size, just like 'Mini' or 'Micro'. So Creative never tried to uphold any trademark of the phrase 'Nano'.
So Apple calls a product 'iPhone', knowing that another company have used the exact same exclusive non-general name for their product. It is like poking someone with a stick and saying 'look what I can do, come take me'.
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".
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?
iPwned!
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
they weren't even the first to add 'i' to a music player, the iAudio iRiver line existed a year or two before the iPod. funny that the whole 'i' thing was just a dodge around the apple records trademark
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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
Remove the 'H', the 'E' add an 'R' and make it a fapping device!
Do not trust this signature.
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.
Apple deserves to be sued for this, just because it was so obvious. Hell, I could have told them that. The best part for me was seeing Steve Jobs up on stage talking about how they will actively enforce all of their patents, then a day later they are sued for an obvious trademark infringement.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
I hadn't noticed that the iPhone mark on the specimen file with the Declaration of Use was actually a sticker, as point out in this article.
As the article states, such fact opens new possibilities regarding the cancellation of the iPhone mark registration for lack of use.