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."

Comments

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it?

[morcheeba]

You can't sell a trademark in the US without the sale of some underlying asset. And, presumably, that asset must appear in the phone.

Trademark isn't an asset like copyrighted works or patents. It's a method for customers to identify the source of goods. Suppose a customer associates "iphone" with cisco -- if someone other that cisco sells an "iphone", then the trademark has failed and does not serve its purpose of manufacturer identification. .. now whether customers associate "iphone" more with Cisco or Apple is another question. And, if the courts assign it to the lesser-associated-with product, will it serve the public interest?

I think Cicso knows they may lose the case

[DurendalMac]

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.

Re:I think Cicso knows they may lose the case

[dhovis]

I think it goes beyond knowing they may lose the case. I think they know that they not only will lose the case, but Cisco also has a couple of employees who are potentially on the hook for perjury right now for fraudulently signing that affidavit claiming that they've been using the trademark for years when they clearly had not. They even submitted a forged picture with a sticker on the outside of the shrinkwrap, claiming it was an actual product being sold by Cisco. Cisco wants to find a way out of this without going to trial, but they can't look to their shareholders like they gave up the potentially very valuable trademark "iPhone" for nothing.

Thoughts on Apple & Cisco

[maggard]

Coupla thoughts:

• It's not clear that Cisco "owns" the name "iPhone" in this case.

  • Apple's product isn't particularly close to the "iPhone" product Cisco now holds the trademark for.
  • There are several other trademarked "iPhone" products also slightly dissimilar that Cisco hasn't challenged (nor have they challenged Cisco).
  • Cisco hadn't exercised their trademarked "iPhone" until they rushed a rebranded product out just in advance of Apple's announcement. This was clearly done entirely to support any claim to the "iPhone" name as the packaging was nothing more then crack-n-peel stickers pasted over the product's original name, not a particularly credible product.

• Cisco's goal appears to be assuring their interoperability with this, and later, versions of Apple's iPhone line.

  • Assured interoperability could prove highly valuable should Apple's iPhone product line eventually encompass VOIP technologies, something most folks expect will happen sooner rather then later.
  • On the other hand such an obligated partnership could well prove onerous to Apple; greatly complicating future technology directions and post-AT&T-committment/other-region carrier negotiations.
  • Apple has historically not been a great hardware partner, witness their repeated difficulties with Motorola (the rocky AIM alliance, their unilateral cancellation of Motorola's license to build 3rd party Mac motherboards, the dismal limitations and stunted marketing of the ROKR phone capped with Apple's decision to build a competing phone. ) A forced partnership with Cisco doesn't inspire much confidence of a better relationship.

• 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.

  • For the reasons above Cisco is unlikely to get either an injunction against Apple continuing to market the name "iPhone" or a summary judgement in Ciscio's favor. Instead this is likely to drag out for years in legal actions & responses.
  • While Apple has begun their marketing for the iPhone it hasn't even entered production yet, so any branding changes to another name is still entirely possible, and will only create more hype.
  • The most likely end result of this whole exercise is Apple either winning the right to use "iPhone" as a a different product then the one Cisco now holds the trademark for, or Apple in a few years pays Cisco some sum of money to make up for damages and makes the whole thing go away.

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 have a solution:

[sokoban]

Googlefight to the death. Winner takes the trademark.

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1= Apple+AND+iPhone&word2=Cisco+AND+iPhone

Looks like Cisco got iPwned

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it?

[Wavicle]

Okay to all the posters prior to this who pointed out the cisco iPhone...

Cisco created that product AFTER Apple announced their iPhone. Cisco allowed their trademark to LAPSE then quickly pulled it back while it was in limbo before being completely abandoned. Cisco incorrectly claimed to have an iPhone product when they renewed the trademark. After word of Apple's iPhone started floating around, Cisco quickly rebranded an existing product to use the iPhone name hoping to hold on to it.

In short, Cisco acted with bad faith, and continues to do so.

I don't particularly like either company, but I think Cisco is the dishonest party in this case.