Either Apple is sure they can this suit or they are totally crazy. Cisco won't lay down and die but they might not be playing fair either. They say they were willing to share the name with Apple but something clearly went wrong. Hopefully this won't de-rail Apple. They don't need more legal trouble.
Companies are always facing lawsuits. Not many of them can threaten the well-being and survivability of the company... unless you're RIM...those guys are toast.
Apple just screwed up. They must have known exactly what was going to happen, maybe they prefer to try and fight in court. Brand awareness counts enormously and that will be in apple's favour, but they dont have much else going for them
You probably couldn't get to Apple.com if i wasn't for Cisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!
Apple just screwed up. They must have known exactly what was going to happen, maybe they prefer to try and fight in court. Brand awareness counts enormously and that will be in apple's favour, but they dont have much else going for them
They didn't necessarily screw up... Jobs is a master negotiator. Give it some time.
There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!
You're absolutely correct. Cisco has not shown a history of defending their trademark and that will bite them in the ass. Then there is the issue in what Cisco filed as the intended market(s) in which this product name would be used.
I'm thinking that they are pissed at Apple for not sealing the deal before their deadline. Seeing that a deal was already being worked on, I thinkin this all will be worked out waaaayyy before June.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
You're absolutely correct. Cisco has not shown a history of defending their trademark and that will bite them in the ass. Then there is the issue in what Cisco filed as the intended market(s) in which this product name would be used.
I recon this is a good backup. SJ used the iPhone name for the announcement because that is what the press and the public wanted to hear. He got the big splash--even my Mom knows that iPhone is coming and that it is made by Apple (she called tonight to find out if I had heard! )
If, after hearing about Apple's iPhone for a few months, Apple can't secure the rights cheeply and changes the name to the (Apple)Phone even technophobes like my mom will know what it is.
What can Cisco do? Get an injunction to keep Apple from selling the phone they don't plan to start selling yet? Even that would be publicity for the (Apple)Phone!
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, Cisco senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission. Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand," Chandler added.
Cisco knows that phones and computers are merging into a future universal convergence device.
They want to be the one who owns the trademark for this device.
Unfortunately, I have bad news for Cisco.
The best name for the convergence device is "iPod" not "iPhone".
"iPhone" emphasizes the devices roots to the phone.
"iPod" is a generic term more appropriate to a device that combines many functions.
Well, IMHO if they don't sell it (iPhone) to Apple then it is utterly useless. Like Hiro said - sorta - anything called iPhone will assumed to be an Apple product.
Let's get basic here, same thing as McFish, McRib, McNuggets, McChicken, McMuffin and a McMeal. Nobody on the friggin planet thinks Burger King makes those.
Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...
That can't happen. Anyone using "pod" in their company/product/website name has received/is receiving warning letters. This will continue. Apple has learned (unfortunately, due to the weakness of their legal counsel) some bitter legal lessons. They will stay on top of trademark and patent issues going forward... it's far too expensive for them to ignore.
The winner of a lottery to buy the first iphone stands nervously on stage. He applauds as Steve comes out to sell the first iphone. Steve Jobs comes out, shakes the lottery winner's hand and walks to a podium. He says, "Well, six months ago we thought that we had a deal with Cisco to license the name 'iphone', but things didn't work out."
"So today we have decided to rename the device that we had previously announced as 'iphone'. Today we launch the same revolutionary, paradigm shattering product with a new name. The new name is 'Apple iPhone'". He looks at the first Apple iPhone customer. "Do you want to buy an Apple iPhone?"
"Oh, yeah!", says the lottery winner, reaching for his credit card. Steve holds up his hand, stopping the lottery winner's motion.
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
With the new (Apple) iPhone the public and the media have been calling the device an iPhone for a few years. There would be a mountain of media releases calling it an iPhone and millions of posts on boards like this calling it the iPhone. That may bode well for Apple, but Cisco would have a hard time convincing a judge that it was just a coincidence that they released their iPhone a month before Apple did. A blind man running for the bus can see that Cisco is riding on Apple's coattails, just as he would be able to see that the public has perceived the iPhone as the device that Apple, not Cisco, has released.
Here's my theory as to why negotiations broke down:
Obviously, the iPhone is the basis for the next iPod; however, we're all thinking that Apple is just going to strip out the phone functionality and add a hard drive (and perhaps add Apple TV integration).
What if Apple left the phone functionality in for the next iPod? What if that phone functionality was for Skype, Yahoo or whatever other internet phone?
Perhaps Cisco said to Apple, "we're cool with you making a cell phone, but you can't make an internet phone?" At that point, Apple says, "no way" and negotiations stop at that point.
Well...that's my theory. Any better ones out there?
I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."
I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."
competition for a name is good. in all fairness, the rightful owner of a product name should be compensated. so if cisco doesn't wish to share the iPhone product name it's their right. it's the same right that apple exercises against a business using "pod" in their product names.
which ever way this turns, i think there's already too many "i" this and "i"that product names on the market. it's overused and watered-down. it's loosing its "i" charm. i think the apple logo and "phone" is the appropriate product name for this phone. i find the apple logo and "phone" like the apple logo and "TV" quite appealing. it's cooler 8)
i say give up the "i" and use the apple logo instead.
I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."
We may all be getting worked up over nothing - have you noticed the branding?
It already does have the Apple logo in front of the name. As far as I can remember, no other Apple product has ever had the logo associated with the name in such a (trademark type) fashion. Well...except the new Apple TV. Maybe Steve is rethinking it all.
which ever way this turns, i think there's already too many "i" this and "i"that product names on the market. it's overused and watered-down. it's loosing its "i" charm. i think the apple logo and "phone" is the appropriate product name for this phone. i find the apple logo and "phone" like the apple logo and "TV" quite appealing. it's cooler 8)
i say give up the "i" and use the apple logo instead.
I think you're right, but don't give the "i" thing up TOTALLY... something with Mac would probably be more appropriate...
But I think "i" is good for things like the iMac and iPod
Comments
Either Apple is sure they can this suit or they are totally crazy. Cisco won't lay down and die but they might not be playing fair either. They say they were willing to share the name with Apple but something clearly went wrong. Hopefully this won't de-rail Apple. They don't need more legal trouble.
Companies are always facing lawsuits. Not many of them can threaten the well-being and survivability of the company... unless you're RIM...those guys are toast.
There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!
Apple just screwed up. They must have known exactly what was going to happen, maybe they prefer to try and fight in court. Brand awareness counts enormously and that will be in apple's favour, but they dont have much else going for them
They didn't necessarily screw up... Jobs is a master negotiator. Give it some time.
They didn't necessarily screw up... Jobs is a master negotiator. Give it some time.
exactly.
There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!
You're absolutely correct. Cisco has not shown a history of defending their trademark and that will bite them in the ass. Then there is the issue in what Cisco filed as the intended market(s) in which this product name would be used.
You're absolutely correct. Cisco has not shown a history of defending their trademark and that will bite them in the ass. Then there is the issue in what Cisco filed as the intended market(s) in which this product name would be used.
Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...
I think (Apple logo)Phone should be used instead.
I recon this is a good backup. SJ used the iPhone name for the announcement because that is what the press and the public wanted to hear. He got the big splash--even my Mom knows that iPhone is coming and that it is made by Apple (she called tonight to find out if I had heard!
If, after hearing about Apple's iPhone for a few months, Apple can't secure the rights cheeply and changes the name to the (Apple)Phone even technophobes like my mom will know what it is.
What can Cisco do? Get an injunction to keep Apple from selling the phone they don't plan to start selling yet? Even that would be publicity for the (Apple)Phone!
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, Cisco senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission. Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand," Chandler added.
Cisco knows that phones and computers are merging into a future universal convergence device.
They want to be the one who owns the trademark for this device.
Unfortunately, I have bad news for Cisco.
The best name for the convergence device is "iPod" not "iPhone".
"iPhone" emphasizes the devices roots to the phone.
"iPod" is a generic term more appropriate to a device that combines many functions.
I think the best naming scheme would be
iPod phone
iPod video
iPod nano
iPod shuffle
Let's get basic here, same thing as McFish, McRib, McNuggets, McChicken, McMuffin and a McMeal. Nobody on the friggin planet thinks Burger King makes those.
Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...
"So today we have decided to rename the device that we had previously announced as 'iphone'. Today we launch the same revolutionary, paradigm shattering product with a new name. The new name is 'Apple iPhone'". He looks at the first Apple iPhone customer. "Do you want to buy an Apple iPhone?"
"Oh, yeah!", says the lottery winner, reaching for his credit card. Steve holds up his hand, stopping the lottery winner's motion.
"The first one is on me."
V/R,
Aries 1B
With the new (Apple) iPhone the public and the media have been calling the device an iPhone for a few years. There would be a mountain of media releases calling it an iPhone and millions of posts on boards like this calling it the iPhone. That may bode well for Apple, but Cisco would have a hard time convincing a judge that it was just a coincidence that they released their iPhone a month before Apple did. A blind man running for the bus can see that Cisco is riding on Apple's coattails, just as he would be able to see that the public has perceived the iPhone as the device that Apple, not Cisco, has released.
Obviously, the iPhone is the basis for the next iPod; however, we're all thinking that Apple is just going to strip out the phone functionality and add a hard drive (and perhaps add Apple TV integration).
What if Apple left the phone functionality in for the next iPod? What if that phone functionality was for Skype, Yahoo or whatever other internet phone?
Perhaps Cisco said to Apple, "we're cool with you making a cell phone, but you can't make an internet phone?" At that point, Apple says, "no way" and negotiations stop at that point.
Well...that's my theory. Any better ones out there?
--DotComCTO
I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."
competition for a name is good. in all fairness, the rightful owner of a product name should be compensated. so if cisco doesn't wish to share the iPhone product name it's their right. it's the same right that apple exercises against a business using "pod" in their product names.
which ever way this turns, i think there's already too many "i" this and "i"that product names on the market. it's overused and watered-down. it's loosing its "i" charm. i think the apple logo and "phone" is the appropriate product name for this phone. i find the apple logo and "phone" like the apple logo and "TV" quite appealing. it's cooler 8)
i say give up the "i" and use the apple logo instead.
I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."
We may all be getting worked up over nothing - have you noticed the branding?
http://www.apple.com/iphone/
It already does have the Apple logo in front of the name. As far as I can remember, no other Apple product has ever had the logo associated with the name in such a (trademark type) fashion. Well...except the new Apple TV. Maybe Steve is rethinking it all.
which ever way this turns, i think there's already too many "i" this and "i"that product names on the market. it's overused and watered-down. it's loosing its "i" charm. i think the apple logo and "phone" is the appropriate product name for this phone. i find the apple logo and "phone" like the apple logo and "TV" quite appealing. it's cooler 8)
i say give up the "i" and use the apple logo instead.
I think you're right, but don't give the "i" thing up TOTALLY... something with Mac would probably be more appropriate...
But I think "i" is good for things like the iMac and iPod