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
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
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
One can only speculate that they. . .
Thought they had a deal. A legitimate understanding through negotiations in good faith (and the courts will often uphold good faith agreements if you can prove they actually existed). But they were dorks overanxious to use to name at the Grand Ball (which Cisco knew and manipulated) and put themselves at the mercy of Cisco who can now be a dick about the whole thing.
If Apple had said "We haven't named it yet," everyone would have just called it the iPhone anyway and deluted Cisco's mark without any liability to Apple.
KFG
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$
Cisco has no choice. If you fail to defend a trademark, you lose your claim to it. If they allowed Apple to proceed with their use of iPhone Apple would win by default.
They have a full decade of an active product with the name before Apple's announcement. This wasn't some Cisco ambush.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One major difference. Cisco legally owns the name. Apple does not. So Cisco released a product, using a trademark that they own. Apple on the other hand, decided screw it, and released a product using somebody else's trademark. I really hope Apple gets there ass handed to them in court. It's arrogance and disrespect for the law. The same law that Apple relies on with their iPod empire.
Even if the negotiations were "fair", Cisco still had the legal right to release the product under the iPhone name, whereas Apple does not.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
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 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!
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
The reason that is significant is that Cisco hasn't defended its trademark in the past. There are several products named iPhone out there. Couple that with the fact that Cisco hasn't used the iPhone name since they purchased it in 2000 and it seems they may be in some legal trouble.