Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Extends Negotiations on iPhone
An anonymous reader writes "Apple and Cisco have just a short while longer to discuss the use of the iPhone name for Apple's new product. Cisco has extended the deadline for a resolution out to February 21st. The two companies are seeking a peaceful resolution to their problems, and the deadline was extended to 'reach an agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.' Early this month, Cisco put their lawsuit on hold to start these negotiations - it's easy to understand why they wouldn't want to scrap a whole month's worth of discussion over a few final details."
I'm not sure how this is in my 'sphere of concern' and it certainly is not in my 'sphere of influence'. This qualifies as background noise.
Why could Apple just buy the trademark? Is Cisco charging too much, since they know they have Apple over a barrel? Here's how I see it:
1. Cisco got the trademark, legal and straight.
2. Apple wanted it.
3. Cisco wouldn't give it up.
4. Apple used it anyway.
5. Cisco sues.
Why can't Cisco just sell it? Is it just a case of general greed?
The government can't save you.
The two companies are seeking a peaceful resolution to their problems, and the deadline was extended to 'reach an agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.
If they failed to come to a "peaceful resolution", does that mean open war between Apple and Cisco? That should be interesting. Apple can hurl old Macs from Cupertino and Cisco can hurl old routers from San Jose.
A massive amount of money has no doubt been wasted on legal fees over this debacle. Situations like this always disgust me when high-tech companies are involved, mainly because that money could have been put to far better uses by both companies.
Imagine what sort of breakthroughs or other technological developments we could have had if Apple and Cisco had given this money to their engineers, rather than their lawyers.
Even just for Apple, this money could no doubt have purchased a number of new optimizations for GCC, potentially increasing the performance of every new Apple system. Better performance for all Mac users seems to be a greater net benefit than a few lawyers getting rich.
Based on everything I've heard I think the unspoken issue may be Cisco trying to use this issue to keep Apple out of VOIP. Their case doesn't sound strong enough to keep Apple from using the name but they probably can with VOIP phones.
I still think it should be called "iCell" Get it? iPod...iCell...units of space...function as extra storage space for various files...
*crickets*
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
If it ever went to court, Cicso would probably lose their trademark. For one, other products were released by other companies that used the name iPhone. Cicso did absolutely nothing. That's a big hit in a trademark lawsuit. If you don't defend it, you lose it. Second, Cicso filed the trademark renewal at almost literally the last minute, and the photo they used was an existing product with a sticker that said "iPhone" slapped on the outside of the clear plastic wrapping. So it stands that they did not have a product named "iPhone" when they renewed their trademark, which means that their renewal was more than likely invalid. If you don't use it, you lose it. Hopefully both companies sort things out, but I think if it ever came to a nasty trademark suit, Apple would wind up with the trademark.
It's more likely that Cisco's sword rattling didn't have the desired effect; Apple still went ahead without Cisco's "approval." The business leaders at Cisco let the trademark lapse. Even if Cisco still had rights to the trademark, the scope of the trademark is doubtful; it could be proved that an IP phone and a wireless phone are really in the same market at all.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
...they want interoperability. For the phone to function in an open way. I'll bet you do too.
Coupla thoughts:
It's not clear that Cisco "owns" the name "iPhone" in this case.
Cisco's goal appears to be assuring their interoperability with this, and later, versions of Apple's iPhone line.
The trademark issue is unlikely to have any immediate effect on Apple's "iPhone" marketing or consumers, it's all IMHO a tempest-in-a-teapot.
Frankly this whole discussion seems a product of the extreme interest in Apple's iPhone and no new real news to report on it, so instead everyone natters on about a trademark issue as if it has any substantive effect.
What interests me far more is what Apple has done then what it is named.
Apple has changed the relationship between phone makers and carriers. They got Cingular, now AT&T, to change their backend specifically to accomodate the iPhone's front-end features. That's big. That cracks open the door to carriers finally starting to get smart about expanding services in partnership with handset makers instead of simply dictating what of the standard feature sets they will & will not support.
Apple seems poised to deliver a mass market portable web browser. No, they're not the first, but to a large extant this is the first one most consumers will be aware of. Finally a decent browser, not the ugly-stepsister WAP stuff, with a good sized screen and able to connect to both the 'net & local networks.
And yeah, it's a wide-screen(ish, it's a bit of an odd ratio) iPod video player. A larger, very high quality, screen, abandonment of the defining circular touchpad, a refreshed interface and video now becoming a peer to audio instead of being an afterthought.
Indeed, what is most suprising to me is that Apple even chose
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Googlefight to the death. Winner takes the trademark.
= Apple+AND+iPhone&word2=Cisco+AND+iPhone
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1
Looks like Cisco got iPwned
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Cisco could have negotiated with Apple until they reached an agreement over the use of the iPhone trademark, but I think they sued Apple because they could get more money this way.
-- Cheers!
Read the product description. Note that while the name of the product is "Linksys WIP320 Linksys Wireless-G Skype iPhone", everywhere else it refers to the phone as, "the Linksys Wireless-G Phone for Skype", or simply, "the Wireless-G Phone".
Not the "the Wireless-G iPhone". Looks to me like they tacked an "i" onto the product name just in time for the lawsuit.
Be interesting to see if anyone has any physical brochures or product sheets on the "iPhone" that predate the lawsuit... and whether or not they had an "i" in them.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Cisco: we registered it, our copyright.
Apple: let us use iPhone or we will register iSwitch, iRouter and iFirewall.
Apple user here, but I seriously think that Cisco is worried mainly about the potential for bad PR for Cisco since Apple can seem to do no wrong lately. Headline: iPhone delayed because apple has to scratch off iPhone logo from 200,000 devices because Cisco wanted the 'i'.
No wonder their name is CiSCO.
Lame.
I sure hope that the 'interesting' moderation is because 'funny' doesn't get you karma. There's nothing interesting about a google fight between a product that supposedly has been available for years but has gotten little attention, and a product that got more press coverage than the O.J. case relatively recently.
..." at the bottom of all their advertising crap.
Here's a much simpler solution:
Did anybody use the term iPhone for a product in the voice telecommunications business before? If so - let them have it. If they didn't file for it. Fine - nobody gets the trademark. And everybody still gets to use it if they so wish.. they just don't get to add a fancy ^tm or (R) next to it and "iPhone is a (registered) trademark of
Weren't there also some problems with Cisco's legal claim to the name? I can't quite remember what it was but AFAIK they failed in both US and EU to adequately secure the name.
:-).
Thus, Cisco may be just hanging on for the nuisance factor. After all, SCO got away with it for years..
It's of course my personal opinion, but I think Cisco were trying it on and Steve Jobs called their bluff. And I think he'll get away with it as well, Cisco can claim as much as it wants but Apple has pretty much claimed the 'i' naming space. We've got 25 more letters to go
Insert
Who noticed that the net effect of this lawsuit is to get apple free media coverage for apple's iPhone?
Maybe apple, or both apple and cisco have some incentive to put off settlement for awhile?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
What Pancho?
Hand me those pliers, I see a dwarf!
The iPhone will join the pile of other crappy Apple products in the scrap heap, I mean "Its a phone its an MP3 player" has been done to death,
WTF is that?! If the negotiations break down, will there be cannon-fire reaching 1 Infinite Loop or something?
More than mere navel gazing.
the first person that tries to use the iPhone name after this.