or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iSuit! Cisco to sue Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iSuit! Cisco to sue Apple

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
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.
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
post #2 of 29
Thread Starter 
I have a little more on the suit, which was filed today, including a statement from Cisco Systems.

No formal comment from Apple as yet.

http://www.tektruth.com/moxie/news/i...apple-ov.shtml
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
post #3 of 29
post #4 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmcgann11 View Post

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.
post #5 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisismyusername View Post

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
post #6 of 29
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.
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
Well...Apple showed clear intent to market a product named "iPhone."

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.
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfron View Post

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?
post #9 of 29
Fake. Isn't it?

Edit: Sh**, seems it ain't...
--
My girlfriend thinks I'm curious - that's what I read in her diary
(Unknown)
Reply
--
My girlfriend thinks I'm curious - that's what I read in her diary
(Unknown)
Reply
post #10 of 29
Well, good and bad news, maybe.

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

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #11 of 29
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.
post #12 of 29
I thought the two companies were in agreement on the name?
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by willrob View Post

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. 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

phone.
i like it.

good luck suing THAT.
post #14 of 29
Haha, Jobs is such a wanker.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Imp View Post

I thought the two companies were in agreement on the name?

Yea, heard that as well. More discussion over in the iPhone Forum
--
My girlfriend thinks I'm curious - that's what I read in her diary
(Unknown)
Reply
--
My girlfriend thinks I'm curious - that's what I read in her diary
(Unknown)
Reply
post #16 of 29
Hehe.

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.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #17 of 29
If courts were to adjudicate for Cisco in the States
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:

post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by durandal View Post

Fake. Isn't it?

Edit: Sh**, seems it ain't...

WHERE WERE YOU???!?!?!?!?!?!
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" ~ Vroomfondel
Reply
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" ~ Vroomfondel
Reply
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

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.
post #20 of 29
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!
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

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?
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #22 of 29
all i know is i dont think this phone is even 50% completed....and i certainly think Job's knows this and is creating his own strategy, ya cisco will take him to court but itll be months even a year before anything is settled...i give it by the time the phone is approve by FCC that the name will be changed to ApplePhone, AND features on the phone will be added like crazy compared to what he showed us on keynote...

like the speculation that apps wont be allowed by 3rd party dev on the phone..BS i think this will change by launch date..and the back of the phone, looks very unready, i think that will change somehow...

i beleive in this because..well why show it off 6 months early? maybe to take ideas from people on what should change to make a perfect phone, and then built even more on top of that in future years...i beleive so, like i have said in other threads...dont be shocked if you hear Job's on this very forum looking for our cool ideas..so lets give it to him haha
post #23 of 29
Quote:
If they were defending their trademark shouldn't Cisco had spoken up a long time ago?

What are you talking about? Who would they sue? What would be the grounds for the lawsuit?

Apple announces the product and, within days, Cisco sues.

The only thing amiss here is the predictable Apple zealotry.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #24 of 29
all analyst demanded an Apple iPhone...

but iPhone is mucho more then just a mobile.. more a Newton II ...

sooo, let's do the PR-stunt, get worldwide attention, then "penitent crawl" back, accept Cisco's rights on name, give device REAL name ...

< conspiracy mode off >

post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Apple pays Cisco off.

Most likely.
Quote:
Apple buys Cisco.

Cisco's market cap. is $174 billions, Apple's is $82 billions.
Quote:
Apple changes the name of the iPhone (it was this in the popular mind before the announcement; iTV had to change its name).

That's what Apple should have begun with. If they were bold enough to announce it as ApplePhone, the whole problem would not exist at all and in a month nobody would remember about any iPhone.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

What are you talking about? Who would they sue? What would be the grounds for the lawsuit?

Oh, I don't know; Wu, Time Mag., NY Times, AppleInsider. There were an awful lot of published reports using the term iPhone. And they were not talking about Cisco. If Cisco intended to protect their trademark they needed to object anytime someone used their trademark to refer to something other than their product. Or at least acknowledging that this was a trademark owned by Cisco. Cisco did not do this. They let two plus years go by letting the public misused the iPhone trademark to refer to the Apple cell phone. My question is how long can the public misuse a trademark before it goes into the public domain.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by k_munic View Post

all analyst demanded an Apple iPhone...

but iPhone is mucho more then just a mobile.. more a Newton II ...

sooo, let's do the PR-stunt, get worldwide attention, then "penitent crawl" back, accept Cisco's rights on name, give device REAL name ...

< conspiracy mode off >


I don't think this is such a kooky idea. At this point, in the four months until its June release, "iPhone" (the Apple one) will establish itself on everybody's tongue, and if Apple is forced to switch the name, everyone will call IT the iPhone and Cisco will wish they had conceded from the beginning because their "iPhone" will be laughable. Imagine it: someone asks for the iPhone for Christmas, and gets the Cisco one...? No way.

In other words, Apple's silence will remain just long enough that iPhone becomes acculturated and when they switch, it would be the same as if they suddenly switched the name of the iPod to "Apple Music Player" - technically the name would be different, but people would still call it what it is.

iPhone is here to stay.
post #28 of 29
post #29 of 29
My guess is that Apple will change the name to either Apple Phone, iTalk or iCom (yeah, I know the names a kind of hokey but this avoids the issue with Cisco Systems).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iSuit! Cisco to sue Apple