Slashdot Mirror
Cisco VP Explains Lawsuit Against Apple
Dekortage writes "The day after Apple announced its iPhone, Cisco sued over the name. Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, has posted an explanation of the suit on his blog: 'For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. ...I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of "we're too busy."' What did Cisco want? '[We] wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future.'" Another reader wrote to mention that already, Cisco's trademark might be in trouble in Europe.
2 years buys a lot of time to find a better name than some fisher price type naming. I thought Apple was an artistic company?
Robert X. Cringely talks about this in his weekly post today. He points out that Apple already conceded the "i"-prefixed name from the iTV to Elgato, makers of the "EyeTV":
So Apple changed its marketing, diluting its whole "iThis" and "iThat" naming strategy in deference to Elgato, a company they could buy with a weekend's earnings from the iTunes Store, but chose to go toe-to-toe with Cisco, a company that's bigger, richer, and just as mean as Apple any day.
He says it all boils down to big publicity stunt, wherein Apple will get a big, free publicity boost when they finally back down and rename it the "Apple Phone". He also goes on to give his explanation for why the iPhone^H^H^H^H^H^HApple Phone won't support Cingular's 3G network.
Cool funny t-shirts for geeks, gamers and everyone else
Oh gods, I'm an idiot. Ignore me. :P
You seriously have to wonder what were they thinking when they named it the iPhone without an agreement in place. One can only speculate that they planned to change the name all along but they needed to get the news out there about it and this was the best way.
Apple has no chance if this does make it to court... The fact that they've been trying to license the name for years proves that they acknowledge Cisco's trademark as valid.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Suckling at Apple's dick might be a good way of getting a dose protein by many slashdotters. But it's hypocritical.
Apple is ALL ABOUT:
-DRM
-Proprietary hardware
-Proprietary software
-Closed protocols
-Lock-ins
-selected compatibility
And just about everything else relating to total control. It's CEO is also know for pulling tantrums.
If you prefer Apple because its one and only way fits well, that's fine. But please stop looking down others (Microsoft users, Linux, etc), because you're the inferior drones.
Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
IANAL, but I think the Patents icon is misleading here. While Patents and trademarks can share similar intellectual property issues, they're applied to different things for different reasons. A patent is generally to protect a method, product, device, or similar tangible things, while trademarks are used for words, phrases, logos, symbols, and such descriptives.
The rules governing them are also fundamentally different on many levels. For example, while you can patent something and then sit on it until someone else actually makes the thing and then sue, a trademark must generally be in use to remain protected.
More, as usual, on WP.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Legalities aside, and I'm not defending the legal aspects of Apple's continued use of the mark, but I'm sure Steve was "surprised and disappointed" too. Apple was apparently talking with Cisco all that time, just to have Cisco actually ship a product with the name just a month before the MacWorld keynote. If Cisco wants to paint itself as the poor hapless guy who got shafted on a sharing agreement mid-negotiation, I don't think it will really hold water. Apple spent how much on the collateral printing for the keynote, prior to the Cisco release? If Cisco puts out an iTurd with an "iPhone" sticker, I'm sure Apple's desire to be associated with Cisco and to share the trademark drops even more.
Note that Cisco is trying to win in the court of public opinion. Apple is remaining very mum about the whole thing. Which one is going to be seen as reasonable public pre-trial behavior in a court case is actually very debatable.
[
After reading the full article, it seems very likely to me that this 'open approach' and 'interoperability' stuff from Cisco is them trying to hitch a ride on the success of the apple iphone. I can understand why Apple doesn't want their phone associated with the Linksys phone, so quite frankly I don't see how this can come as a surprise to Cisco.
On the other hand, iPhone is quite clearly a trademark belonging to Cisco, and Apple knows it. So should be interesting to see what is going to happen.
The difference is that when the iTV was announced they specifically said that wasn't the final name, presumably because they new about the existing trademarks and possibility of confusion or litigation. In this case, they called it the iPhone, and even though they knew all about the existing trademarks they didn't say anything about the name being a placeholder. I don't think they have any plans to change it unless they're forced to.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I can hear the ads now ....
The Divinyls I Touch Myself Lyrics
I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me
Chorus:
I don't want anybody else
When I think about you
I touch myself
I don't want anybody else
Oh no, oh no, oh no
You're the one who makes me happy honey
You're the sun who makes me shine
When you're around I'm always laughing
I want to make you mine
I close my eyes
And see you before me
Think I would die
If you were to ignore me
A fool could see
Just how much I adore you
I get down on my knees
I'd do anything for you
Chorus
I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me
Chorus
I want you
I don't want anybody else
And when I think about you
I touch myself
Ooh, oooh, oooooh, aaaaaah
Chorus
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This is another example of the much-beloved Apple saying a firm no to interoperability. Now, it's probably the case that Cisco was asking for way too much. But this highlights Apple is only a little different than say, Microsoft when it comes down to pissing matches and interoperability.
At this point in history, both OS vendors will eat their babies. Beware brother, beeeware.
Mod me down for saying an unkind word about Apple, but there is at least a little truth to it.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Steve Jobs isn't an 'Enemy' of open source. He doesn't activly fight against open source.
No third party apps* was so he could get a carrier.
*I think we all know people will find a way around this.
He is certianly NOT my hero. There are many thing to ream him on, this really isn't one of them.
It is interesting that this conflicts with an earlier memo from Cisco stating that all they needed was to wrap up some minor details of an agreement.
I don't know what Jobs is thinking, I do know he isn't stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I like that. It helps to reduce squatting, speculation, and hoarding.
What?
Oh shut the fuck up and read the names on the RFCs the IETF puts out. Cisco contributes reguarly to protocol standardization. Several of the protocols you're bitching about have equivilant open standard alternatives that are fully supported in IOS. HSRP -> VRRP; isl -> 802.1q
examples:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4456.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4364.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4062.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3137.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4443.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4659.txt
1) Apple's reliance on the "i" series of trade marks it already has. It will use this as a means of satisfying a test to determine the likelihood of confusion between the products. Some US legal experts have already claimed that this may not be a runner. We'll see (the area is heavily fact-specific so don't judge!)
2) Cisco's failure properly to defend its iphone trademark against usage by other third parties involved in a similar line of business. Can't really comment on that seeing as I don't know enough about it. what's funny however is that a google search for "iphone" gives you about 7 pages of results on the Apple product and diddly squat on any else.
There are two other factors which I can see, but which I think haven't necessarily been talked about much:
3) Cisco knows full well (but omits to mention) that Cingular will not allow Apple to "do VoIP" on its cells. An invitation to commit to interoperability between two companies looks on the surface like something both would want. After all, both are respected organisations with lots of R&D skills and a (generally well thought-of) reputation for execution. However, because the business plan could not yet allow that, Apple sensed a dangerous honey trap designed to lure it into an exclusive tie-in on VoIP on the iPhone platform. As we know, Apple partners with who it wants when it wants.
4) As this article http://www.out-law.com/page-7650 suggests, Cisco may lose its EU trade marks in "iPhone" shortly. Apple may have filed the revocation notice itself. If the filing succeeds, Cisco will almost certainly have to settle.
As you can see, it's a muddy one. I'm not hugely impressed with Cisco's line that "it was never about the money". It's always about money if you think that you're paying more than something is worth. Apple's probably seen that 4) is likely to succeed, and will stall until Cisco is forced back to the table with a lower price. My 0.2$
C'mon, Apple. Call it the WiiPhone. Or the XPhone360. Or the ApplePhone With Jay Leno. There's lawyers starving on the East Coast who desperately need the work, and having to settle for 5 series insetad of 7 series.
What did Cisco want? '[We] wanted an open approach.'
'What did Cisco want? [We] approached Steve and asked him to open his wallet'
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Is it just me or has the iPhone recently had an Apple logo tacked to the front of it's name like the (apple)TV?
I'm sure this gif has changed since the keynote.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
What I find very strange is that Apple choose to use the iPhone name, as they wanted to use the Mac trademark more. I can understand that they would use the iPhone name as a continuation of the iPod brand, or to lift on the rumors of the press.
As the phone is basically a Mac OS X machine (if that is correct information) I would have expected they would call it the MacPhone.
From this point of view it would be unlikely to be called the Apple Phone. MacPhone also sound nicer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A record company selling Beatles music sued a computer company selling microcomputer hardware, the former having a red apple logo, the latter using a rainbrow-striped apple with a bite in it. Which "Apple" was doing the steamrolling, here?
I mean, should Anya Seton's estate executors be suing Toyota and Marion Bradley?
The standards regarding "infringement" require than the trademark similarity be prone to cause marketplace confusion between the products, diluting the brand.
Of course, Apple's prima facie argument that VOIP and cellular phones are too dissimilar to cause confusion remains highly questionable. It's true that the two are fairly dissimilar markets, but that could easily change, especially given Cisco's otherwise-spurious "interoperability" line. That request alone may prove to a judge that there's at least a case that the two markets are insufficiently dissimilar to allow Apple to use the same trademark.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
They felt the need to create them because they probably felt they can do it better, and in most cases they have. But they are open to admitting that another standard is better, such is the case with ISL, cisco has basically scrapped ISL in favor of 802.1q. You are semi-right about a "lock in", but cisco customers expect something better than another companies network gear, they get the capability of using cisco's own stuff like EIGRP or CDP...thats why people buy cisco, but cisco doesnt make you use them, you can just as easily use OSPF instead of EIGRP, so you can interoperate. But if you have an all cisco campus, why not use EIGRP if you think it will better suit you.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
The Cisco General Counsel says they bought a company that had purchased the name in 1996, and if you look at the Wayback Machine, Cisco references the product on their website as far back as 2000 (after the iMac came out but well before the iPod was released).
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
I haven't done a whole hell of a lot of research on this yet... isn't it ironic that Cisco released an "iPhone" 3 weeks before Jobs announced their "iPhone." Also if they had been negotiating... which they apparently have been... Cisco probably had some sort of general idea when Apple would want to use this name for their product, and then BAM the new Linksys iPhone... and did anyone ever question that instead of being the masters of patent trolling (which should be illegal) just wanted to be a stickler in the butt of Apple merely because they have been growing so well?
I just don't understand how Apple's phone and Cisco's phone would inter-operate. I know that if I bought one, why the hell would I want it to inter-operate with that phone? It seems Cisco wants to be friends with Apple and Apple is too cool for friends. It's kind of pathetic.
amtron amtronx@yahoo.com
I don't get why Apple doesn't just call it the iPod Phone. iPod is an existing, well-established, trusted brand. The iPhone hardware is an iPod -- that is, it gives you all the same features. It just has phone and camera features added on. So what? Nothing about the name "iPod" says "MP3 player." They already added video playback and nobody batted an eye. What better way to revitalize the iPod brand than to add a line of products with phone features?
Breakfast served all day!
Watta bunch of hypocrites!
IAATL - trademark law is one of my specialities. The Cisco iPhone trademark was registered 11/16/1999 (Reg. No. 2293011). In order to keep a trademark registration active, you have to file a Declaration of Use on or before the sixth anniversary of the registration date, in which you state, under penalty of perjury, that you have been using the trademark continuously during that period. The sixth anniversary would have been 11/16/2005. Cisco did not file the Declaration of Use in the requisite period. However, the USPTO gives you an extra six months grace period, if you pay an extra fee. This grace period would have expired 5/16/2006. Cisco filed a Declaration of Use on 5/4/2006 which kept their registration active. Had they not filed, their registration would have been canceled. With the Declaration, you are required to file a copy of a label or other packaging showing the trademark in use. Cisco filed a picture of the box for the Linksys iPhone. Now the Cisco press releases I have seen indicate that Cisco released the iPhone products in December 2006. Now this is my personal opinion based on the information I have seen so far (your mileage may vary): Cisco may have a problem with its trademark registration because it has not been continuously offering a product under the iPhone trademark since 1999. They knew that Apple was interested in the name (since Apple had approached them and negotiations were ongoing). If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark. It is possible that the Declaration of Use is defective, as there was no continuous use, and the sample that Cisco submitted was for a product not released until 7 months later. The fact that the Declaration of Use was submitted only days before the deadline expires gives me the impression that they were scrambling to get a product to market, and had to file the Declaration before the product was ready. Apple's lawyers will have certainly found the same clues that I did, and may believe that Cisco's registration can be cancelled (by proving in federal court that the Declaration of Use contained mistatements of fact - there was no continuous use). If Apple believes that they can get the registration cancelled, they may not have wanted to sign the agreement Cisco proposed. Without the registration, Cisco and Apple would still have a trademark dispute to resolve, but Cisco will have a harder time proving that it has valid trademark rights.
Cringely suspects that the whole thing is a marketing stunt. They had 2 major announcements at mac world:
1) iPhone
2) iTV
They both had trademark issues. iPhone was with Cisco and iTV was with eyeTV. They changed the iTV to Apple TV. They could have just as easily changed iPhone to Apple Phone or something else. Why didn't they do it? Cringely writes that he thinks it's for its marketing value. It guarantees that iPhone and the lawsuit will stay in the news long enough for everyone in the country to have heard of it. I don't know if this is the real reason but it does fit the facts. I wonder if the cost of a lawsuit is less than a TON of commercials and other advertisements.
www.joshferguson.org
Apple really, really wanted to use Sosumi as the ringtone on this phone.