Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Lawsuit Put On Hold For The Moment
SoulReaverDan writes "The recent lawsuit between Cisco and Apple on the iPhone trademark has taken an interesting turn. Cisco and Apple have agreed to a temporary truce, to allow Apple time to respond to the lawsuit (and, one assumes, avoid more legal fees). The article goes on to mention Apple's claim that several companies are using the iPhone name, which dovetails nicely with a great blog entry over on ZDNet. Alan Graham lays out a search of various websites, showing that not only is Cisco not the only one using the iPhone name, they're trying to use it just a little too hard. The image of the CIT300 (note this is NOT the CIT400 that Cisco is suing Apple for at all) on Amazon has the iPhone logo, but it lacks the logo on the Linksys website or on CDW's website."
The lot of them
Nothing witty
Oh. My. God. Seriously, if I see one more damn iPhone story on here talking about the trademark issue, I'm going to buy an iPhone when it comes out, just so I can smash it to a million bits.
Nobody cares. Let me know when there's something *meaningful* to report.
Sony ha
happens when someone else down the road comes up with gear using the name as well, if not a phone what about accessories.
I am curious what goes down then.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't see what the fuss is about. Who really cares what a device is named? Call it whatever you want (other than iPoo), as long as it works... that's all I care about.
Just go ahead and change the name to the Apple Phone from The New AT&T formerly the iPhone from Cingular formerly the old AT&T.
When did Billy Corgan gain weight, change his name to Alan Graham and start writing a tech column?
lawsuit. If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry (much as McDonald's does with Mc in fast food). OTOH, if they work out a license agreement then that risk is gone.
If they lose, then they need to rename the iPhone; with all the attendant costs.
Seems to me that an agreement is less risky than a lawsuit.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The only thing I can think of is its some kind of publicity strategy to get the Cisco phones some press.
I never heard of the Cisco iphone until all of this started. I did hear of the Apple iPhone but wasn't aware of Cisco's iPhone.
Cisco was obviously not marketing their phone under the name iPhone so why is the name so important?
I can only guess its more cost effective for them to spend the money on a lawsuit as opposed to marketing.
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
Is this the corporate version of the minefield? As if to say, "Don't step on our toes, or we'll go off on you!" Is it necessary that the name of a product be sole ownership of a single product by a single company? Surely we all know which product we are talking about in conversation via the context of use. The corporations aren't afraid that we'll get the products confused, or that a bad review for a product of the same name will keep us from buying their product.
Or is it, more likely, that this is the school-yard bully tactic? Cisco flexing its muscles to intimidate Apple in order to establish self-esteem? Perhaps they have a staff of lawyers and figure that they might as well use them. Then again, I'm sure that Cisco's resources aren't vast enough to just flex its power at will with nothing to gain...
Or perhaps, just perhaps, that's the idea. There is no such thing as negative publicity. I'm now only familiar with the Cisco iPhone due to this litigation! Sounds like free marketing. If you can hold a press release, do it - it's free product advertisement...if you can't do that, sue someone to generate publicity for a product knowing that if it doesn't go to trial, it'll be cheaper than a marketing campaign.
I'm a software development major, not a marketing major - please tell me if there is any validity to my musings, or if I'm just cynical.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I thought Cisco already lost by not using the trademark for a 5 year period after purchasing NetGear (who did use the trademark). And isn't there a falsified affidavit - with a false claim of continuing use - submitted by a Cisco representative to the trademark office to extend that unused trademark? And did not Cisco submit a photograph of an already shipping product that did not go by the name iPhone to the trademark office as (false) proof of the trademark being used in commerce? Anyone else seen the picture of that sticker Cisco affixed to the outside shrinkwrap of the back of the non-iPhone product?
Methinks Cisco is delaying because Cisco does not want to lose too quickly.
Good call. I don't see what the hangup is anyway. Are they finally starting to get dialed in to their customers' needs?
"Cisco has owned the trademark for the name [iPhone] since 1996 - before Apple even started putting the letter "i" in front of its products - and thus has always had full rights to the name. As for why it took Cisco this long to make use of the name, the only possible explanations could be either it never reached an agreement for the sale of the trademark, or it chose to capitalize on the name now that it's the buzzword of the tech circles".
So, Cisco is using iPhone because products starting with "i" are hot, because Apple is selling the iPod. But Cisco is suing Apple because Apple is selling an iPhone.
Apple lawyers immediately trademarked the name "iRony".
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
"Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606"
This is from USPTO Trademark Registration #2293011
Browsing the TESS database there is always amusing. For example, I see 10 live claims pending for the "iPhone" trademark, and one dead claim. It will be really amusing if the USPTO grants those other claims, as at least some look like they would infringe.
The real question is whether Cisco's claim is still valid though. IMHO (IANAL), this claim has been lost. In which case Apple would have yet another battle to fight, if any of those claims are granted.
Finally (hey, I said I found this stuff amusing), you can look up the registrations for "GNU". It's 2861936. And for "Linux", it's 1916230. Yes, GNU was registered after Linux.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
apple: So, if we go to court, we might lose.
Cisco: Right. But we might lose too and then get no money out of you.
Okay, so if we pay you half the amount we would otherwise pay for our lawyers, then we both win.
Only half? We think you can do better.
Let's announce that the suit is on hold, and go negotiate.
Sounds good, let's set it up for wednesday
-GiH
Just a law student.
So, Cisco is shipping a product under the iPhone name now. They've also had the trademark for a decade and have shipped products under than name previously. Apple knew that and they were negotiating with Cisco.
What product exactly is Apple shipping under the iPhone name?
Yes, and Apple isn't using the trademark at all yet, since no iPhones are actually shipping.
So, even if Cisco just starts using the trademark now, they are still months ahead of Apple.
Of course, Apple knew that the iPhone trademark was claimed by Cisco since they were negotiating with them long before they released their iPhone. Looks to me like Apple is just trying to strong-arm the trademark away from Cisco by whatever means they can.
no win situation
Quite to the contrary. Apple knew that Cisco claimed the trademark, and they were in negotiations when they announced the iPhone. Not only is the lawsuit not a problem for them, it's giving them free publicity and they were counting on it.
If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry
They don't have that right to begin with, since tehre are already plenty of other i-something products, even for the Macintosh. But perhaps they are trying to establish it through their behavior.
On the whole, I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.
Have we collectively gotten to the point where company branding is actually more important than the item in and of itself?
Yep.
How do we find ourselves in a society where product name is so important?
That's a real Mickey Mouse question.
I have a Cisco phone sitting right here.
:)
Says it right on the faceplate. Cisco IP Phone.
Whoops. Too many letters. Nevermind.
So has Cisco, and apparently before the Apple announcement.
Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.
Obviously, you are not a lawyer, as Cisco is well within its legal rights to extend its use of the trademark on a product that it owns the trademark to and which appeared for sale (18 December 2006), well before any Apple product of the same name has appeared for sale on the market. In fact Apple has no iPhone product. It only has an announcement of a product and such an announcment does not contitute FTC acceptance of its purported claim to the use of a previously actively registered trademark name currently on file with the FTC. One can not squat on a trademark unless one actually has a product that is actually for sale. Further, the clause in the filing requirements necessary for maintaining one's trademark permit a grace period and Cisco is certainly well within the grace period as is evident given the date they filed suit against Apple. Consequently, there is simply no legal basis to make the false inference that any falsification was made. To my knowledge I have yet to hear any Apple executive indicate that it has filed a formal request to use Cisco's lawfully registered and lawfully extended trademark name.
If Cisco, which has had the trademark registered as required by law is unable to prevent Apple from using the iPhone name because Apple's iPhone is a cell phone whereas Cisco's iPhone is an Internet Phone, Apple is in big trouble. Unlike Apple Records, which had no recourse within the marketplace to prevent Apple Computer from selling music under the Apple label despite a court ordered enforcement provision, Cisco is not without such recourse. They could quite easily incorporate firmware in their routers to deny any Apple iPhone devices from attempting to link to the internet about 85% of which is poweerd by Cisco routers. That would mean that Apple's i(Cell)Phone would be essentially brain dead before it is even born, since Cisco's iPhone trademark would apply to any iPhone capable of accessing the internet. How ungeeky and uncool would you be if you had an iPhone that couldn't even link to the internet and you paid $500 plus $80/month in cell phone connect fees?
Apple better start thinking about settling rather than attempting to rely on its lawyers or it and its customers could get seriously burned by using an Apple iPhone device (or should one say a Cingular iCellPhone? Indeed, it is more likely that Apple's lawyers have finally informed their client that they really don't have a case and that they really need to negotiate a settlement with Cisco, lest things turn out badly for Apple and their self-inflicted PR disaster.
I'd be willing to bet that Apple settles this to Cisco's satisfaction before their phone actually appears on the market. They will find some way to save face with their cult followers and end the nightmare before it gets worse for them.
To put it a little differently, don't mess with the plumber unless you want your sewer to start backing up on you.