According to CBS and MSNBC, Cisco is suing Apple over the iPhone trademark.
Seems kind of dubious to me...but I guess negotiations broke down.
hmm... this confuses me. from what i've gotten out of apple's phone so far is that it doesn't even exist. Sure, steve had one at the keynote, but aside from him referring to it as the iphone, there weren't any official markings that said "iphone" on the product itself. apple isn't taking preorders, and nobody really owns one.. how is there a suit? politics make no sense.
hmm... this confuses me. from what i've gotten out of apple's phone so far is that it doesn't even exist. Sure, steve had one at the keynote, but aside from him referring to it as the iphone, there weren't any official markings that said "iphone" on the product itself. apple isn't taking preorders, and nobody really owns one.. how is there a suit? politics make no sense.
Reports said Apple was close to signing a deal purchasing the iPhone trademark from them.
I guess after seeing how cool and likely successful the product is going to be they instead decided to sue straight away - in the hopes of extorting even more money! Seeing that Jobs would now likely pay any price to get the iPhone trademark from them this was probably just a clever, tactical move - if true.
i suppose if your that desperate for a piece of apple's success, you can find a way. still think it's bs, though. i mean, they're not selling it either, just letting people know an apple phone is on the way.
i think apple should rename it like the appleTV. i like the apple symbol next to the products name. seeing as they changed the name to Apple, Inc, and all.. it kinda makes sense. they've been dropping the "i", and now they add a new one?
I think ApplePhone (with Apple replaced by the Apple symbol)
Phone
Would be more elegant and link the phone to its creator and Apple's other products.
pretty sure i just said this about five minutes ago. too bad i wasn't smart enough to make it noticable by adding the apple symbol. but i definitely said it, nonetheless.
anyway, i see this happening. itv=>tv, thus, iphone=>phone
the iphone is very different than the ipod, thus giving even more reason to give it the symbol
BRussell's right. Jobs *is* a wanker. A cunning wanker.
I think Apple have no intention of selling it as the iPhone. Apple phone will be the name, keeping in line with what I see as their new branding strategy (see the logo on top of the Apple tv).
In order to capitalize on the pre-keynote hype and months/years of speculation - all based on the iPhone name - they decided to launch with it. I expect that we'll see a rebrand in the near future.
I think Apple have no intention of selling it as the iPhone. Apple phone will be the name, keeping in line with what I see as their new branding strategy (see the logo on top of the Apple tv).
In order to capitalize on the pre-keynote hype and months/years of speculation - all based on the iPhone name - they decided to launch with it. I expect that we'll see a rebrand in the near future.
You may be right. The iPhone name didn't make sense to me, seeing that iTV was re-branded appleTV. iPhone may be a place-holder. They waited until the last minute to re-brand iTV, and they may do the same for iPhone. Though one thing that bothers me is that in the "Showtime" presentation, Jobs did say that iTV was the code name several times. He didn't do so at all yesterday for iPhone
And on a separate note. I think the only reason that Cisco released their iPhone in December was to show that they were defending their trademark. This was their way of ensuring that if Apple did want to go with the iPhone name, it would not come to them cheaply.
iPhone or some other form of the same name can be employed to clarify that these iphones are made by different companies. A change in logo for instance. Cisco is a good company but is their iPhone going to really take off? Nah!
I have a few ideas (copyright and patented of course) so, Steve call and we'll take a meeting!
I think the only reason that Cisco released their iPhone in December was to show that they were defending their trademark. This was their way of ensuring that if Apple did want to go with the iPhone name, it would not come to them cheaply.
If they were defending their trademark shouldn't Cisco had spoken up a long time ago? By letting the public (notice Apple never mentioned iPhone until yesterday) use iPhone as the name for the Apple cell phone for so long didn't Cisco run the risk of allowing the iPhone name go into the public domain?
Comments
No formal comment from Apple as yet.
http://www.tektruth.com/moxie/news/i...apple-ov.shtml
According to CBS and MSNBC, Cisco is suing Apple over the iPhone trademark.
Seems kind of dubious to me...but I guess negotiations broke down.
hmm... this confuses me. from what i've gotten out of apple's phone so far is that it doesn't even exist. Sure, steve had one at the keynote, but aside from him referring to it as the iphone, there weren't any official markings that said "iphone" on the product itself. apple isn't taking preorders, and nobody really owns one.. how is there a suit? politics make no sense.
hmm... this confuses me. from what i've gotten out of apple's phone so far is that it doesn't even exist. Sure, steve had one at the keynote, but aside from him referring to it as the iphone, there weren't any official markings that said "iphone" on the product itself. apple isn't taking preorders, and nobody really owns one.. how is there a suit? politics make no sense.
Unless you count the ad on the Cingular home page - http://www.cingular.com
I guess after seeing how cool and likely successful the product is going to be they instead decided to sue straight away - in the hopes of extorting even more money! Seeing that Jobs would now likely pay any price to get the iPhone trademark from them this was probably just a clever, tactical move - if true.
It's in their press materials...and now even in the name of this forum (suggesting that it is the recognized name of the product announced yesterday).
As I said, it appears ongoing negotiations between the two companies broke down.
Unless you count the ad on the Cingular home page - http://www.cingular.com
good point.
i suppose if your that desperate for a piece of apple's success, you can find a way. still think it's bs, though. i mean, they're not selling it either, just letting people know an apple phone is on the way.
i think apple should rename it like the appleTV. i like the apple symbol next to the products name. seeing as they changed the name to Apple, Inc, and all.. it kinda makes sense. they've been dropping the "i", and now they add a new one?
Edit: Sh**, seems it ain't...
Temporarily, a little bad press. In the long run, however, people want the Apple phone bad, so they will buy loads of them.
Apple pays Cicsco off.
Apple buys Cisco.
Apple changes the name of the iPhone (it was this in the popular mind before the announcement; iTV had to change its name).
If Apple changes the name of the device, they can add VOIP functionality, which would eliminate the need for Cisco's phone.
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/index.html
I think ApplePhone (with Apple replaced by the Apple symbol)
Phone
Would be more elegant and link the phone to its creator and Apple's other products.
Did anybody even like the name?
I think ApplePhone (with Apple replaced by the Apple symbol)
Phone
Would be more elegant and link the phone to its creator and Apple's other products.
pretty sure i just said this about five minutes ago.
anyway, i see this happening. itv=>tv, thus, iphone=>phone
the iphone is very different than the ipod, thus giving even more reason to give it the symbol
phone.
i like it.
good luck suing THAT.
I thought the two companies were in agreement on the name?
Yea, heard that as well. More discussion over in the iPhone Forum
BRussell's right. Jobs *is* a wanker. A cunning wanker.
I think Apple have no intention of selling it as the iPhone. Apple phone will be the name, keeping in line with what I see as their new branding strategy (see the logo on top of the Apple tv).
In order to capitalize on the pre-keynote hype and months/years of speculation - all based on the iPhone name - they decided to launch with it. I expect that we'll see a rebrand in the near future.
by awarding damages, years from now if ever,
Apple would simply charge a similar amount for
Cisco violating apple's iPhone mark in the U.K., Australasia, etc.
It's best for Cisco to license for a token fee rather
than give money to lawyers for uncertain return.
As for Apple TV, see:
Fake. Isn't it?
Edit: Sh**, seems it ain't...
WHERE WERE YOU???!?!?!?!?!?!
I think Apple have no intention of selling it as the iPhone. Apple phone will be the name, keeping in line with what I see as their new branding strategy (see the logo on top of the Apple tv).
In order to capitalize on the pre-keynote hype and months/years of speculation - all based on the iPhone name - they decided to launch with it. I expect that we'll see a rebrand in the near future.
You may be right. The iPhone name didn't make sense to me, seeing that iTV was re-branded appleTV. iPhone may be a place-holder. They waited until the last minute to re-brand iTV, and they may do the same for iPhone. Though one thing that bothers me is that in the "Showtime" presentation, Jobs did say that iTV was the code name several times. He didn't do so at all yesterday for iPhone
And on a separate note. I think the only reason that Cisco released their iPhone in December was to show that they were defending their trademark. This was their way of ensuring that if Apple did want to go with the iPhone name, it would not come to them cheaply.
I have a few ideas (copyright and patented of course) so, Steve call and we'll take a meeting!
I think the only reason that Cisco released their iPhone in December was to show that they were defending their trademark. This was their way of ensuring that if Apple did want to go with the iPhone name, it would not come to them cheaply.
If they were defending their trademark shouldn't Cisco had spoken up a long time ago? By letting the public (notice Apple never mentioned iPhone until yesterday) use iPhone as the name for the Apple cell phone for so long didn't Cisco run the risk of allowing the iPhone name go into the public domain?