Apple, Cisco trade shots over iPhone lawsuit

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 84
    "This is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement," Chandler wrote. "This is a suit about trademark infringement."



    Cisco's already afraid. Very, very afraid. Like an animal trapped in the corner. Did you notice??? 
  • Reply 22 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,780member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by saschke View Post


    "This is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement," Chandler wrote. "This is a suit about trademark infringement."



    Cisco's already afraid. Very, very afraid. Like an animal trapped in the corner. Did you notice??? ???



    No, not really.



    But, this isn't just about the trademark, it's also about he part in the agreement about both Apple's and Cisco's equipment working together.



    Apple hates that! They shouldn't have led Cisco on during the past 6 months.



    Too bad, really.



    It would be better for both companies.



    Apple might have a big part in consumer life these days, but Cisco controls the way we will be using the internet in a technical way. The two working together would truely give us some amazing products.



    But, Apple, with Jobs, is infamous for not wanting to work with other companies unless Apple feels as though it has no choice.



    Cisco is far too big, and rich, for Apple to push around.
  • Reply 23 of 84
    Didn't apple start off the whole iName thing with the iMac and therefore could TM the whole iRange in one swoop, just an idea!
  • Reply 24 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,780member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gremlin View Post


    Didn't apple start off the whole iName thing with the iMac and therefore could TM the whole iRange in one swoop, just an idea!



    No, it doesn't work that way. As far as I know, the iPhone name was registered before the first iMac even came out.



    Even if the iMac came out first, no one can get an open ended trademark.



    Apple would have been smart to have registered all names for products that they could possibly think of. But, Apple isn't always smart. They have made many mistakes Filing patent applications too late, etc.
  • Reply 25 of 84
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AgNuke1707 View Post


    Shift + Option + K =  !!!! Rejoice!



    Is there any particular reason for that letter? K isn't even in the name of the fruit or anything else that's easy to remember. Is that the only one left after they add all the internationalization characters? Shift Option A would make more sense to me, but it gives me the angstrom symbol (Å). I know that's a real character from a real language, but I don't know what it is otherwise. S-O-P gives me a capital "Pi" - ∏. The only mnemonic I can think of is "apple trademarK". I'm not sure how I can argue that any of these examples are consistent or easy to remember without a major stretch of a mnemonic like my example.
  • Reply 26 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,780member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Is there any particular reason for that letter? K isn't even in the name of the fruit or anything else that's easy to remember. Is that the only one left after they add all the internationalization characters? Shift Option A would make more sense to me, but it gives me the angstrom symbol (Å). I know that's a real character from a real language, but I don't know what it is otherwise. S-O-P gives me a capital "Pi" - ?. The only mnemonic I can think of is "apple trademarK". I'm not sure how I can argue that any of these examples are consistent or easy to remember without a major stretch of a mnemonic like my example.



    The Apple logo, being a private mark, has to fit wherever it can. International characters are far more important. It's also only available in fonts that don't also use that designatiod combination.
  • Reply 27 of 84
    If apple doesn't get what they want, they change the name... Even on apple it isn't JUST called iPhone...



    Plus criminal Steve 'called' it iPhone... Like he called Apple TV, 'iTV'.
  • Reply 28 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,780member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EruIthildur View Post


    If apple doesn't get what they want, they change the name... Even on apple it isn't JUST called iPhone...



    Plus criminal Steve 'called' it iPhone... Like he called Apple TV, 'iTV'.



    And don't be stupid with this "criminal Steve" thing, you don't have to prove anything.
  • Reply 29 of 84
    Apple should change the name. It's way more than a phone... much more!

    Too bad they already used iLife as it would suit it well!
  • Reply 30 of 84
    Cisco wanted to produce a Linksys iTV device, and have access to other Apple treasures like iTunes. Someone at Cisco noticed they owned the name "iPhone" (as in iMac, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iPod), and saw it as a huge bargaining chip. Cisco slapped it on a product so they could bargain from strength, and offered Apple the name in return for... money + interoperability. Apple didn't mind the money, but Cisco's "interoperability"(code for "a Linksys piece of the iTV iTunes iPod pie") was unacceptable. Apple said here's more money; Cisco insisted on interoperability; Apple said, iDontThinkSo, let the courts decide.



    Apple may or may not win/settle the case, but they will certainly NOT let someone use an unintentionally acquired name to weasle their way into Apple's carefully built ecosystem.
  • Reply 31 of 84




    If you go to the USPTO website trademark section iPhone (you need to type in the word iphone as the actual link will timeout eventually) that tells an interesting story. For instance the original trademark was for "IPHONE" not "iPhone" and the original trademark filing (by a different company (?)) looks to have been inactive until Cisco took up the charge in March 2004. Long after the whole "i" followed by a capitalized word thing was around thanks to Apple. And we all know that the iPhone rumors have been around for at least the last what 2 years? There are also 2 other "iPhone" trademarks filed by other teleco's within the last year or so.



    IMHO I do think Apple has a case here, given the history of the whole "i" followed by a capitalized word thing and given the Apple iPhone rumors. And yes I do realize that many companies have also capitalized on the whole "i" followed by a capitalized word thing, but Apple started the whole thing with their iPod and iTunes franchise.



  • Reply 32 of 84
    shaminoshamino Posts: 412member
    Quote:

    "We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone,"



    Uh huh... So they think that Linksys's line of VoIP WiFi phones are substantially different from their iPhone, and is therefore not infringing?



    I hope this goes to court and they try to make this argument. Then the argument will gain a lot more legitimacy when used by all of the people Apple is suing over completely unrelated devices with "pod" in the name.
  • Reply 33 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shamino View Post


    Uh huh... So they think that Linksys's line of VoIP WiFi phones are substantially different from their iPhone, and is therefore not infringing?



    I hope this goes to court and they try to make this argument. Then the argument will gain a lot more legitimacy when used by all of the people Apple is suing over completely unrelated devices with "pod" in the name.







    Perhaps Apple is seeing some free PR value in this? By the time everyone files motions, goes to court, appeals are filed, your 2-year Cingular contract will have expired! In the meantime Apple get's to use the iPhone moniker and get's free PR value.



    Apple loses and rebrands it iGadget (or something). So what, who cares, big deal! But in the end whatever the name is will probably have a higher public profile, which I think serves Apple's real purpose (and perhaps Cisco's)!



    Remember there was an argeement waiting for Apple to sign (or so it is rumored) and they walked away. What does that tell you about the situation?



  • Reply 34 of 84
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shamino View Post


    Uh huh... So they think that Linksys's line of VoIP WiFi phones are substantially different from their iPhone, and is therefore not infringing?



    They're not a cellphone. They don't use a cellular network. Therefore, "We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone" is perfectly accurate. They're phones, but not cellphones.
  • Reply 35 of 84
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by purpleshorts View Post


    Cisco wanted to produce a Linksys iTV device, and have access to other Apple treasures like iTunes. Someone at Cisco noticed they owned the name "iPhone" (as in iMac, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iPod), and saw it as a huge bargaining chip. Cisco slapped it on a product so they could bargain from strength, and offered Apple the name in return for... money + interoperability. Apple didn't mind the money, but Cisco's "interoperability"(code for "a Linksys piece of the iTV iTunes iPod pie") was unacceptable. Apple said here's more money; Cisco insisted on interoperability; Apple said, iDontThinkSo, let the courts decide.



    Apple may or may not win/settle the case, but they will certainly NOT let someone use an unintentionally acquired name to weasle their way into Apple's carefully built ecosystem.



    Exactly - Cisco is the scumbag in this situation. I bet that they never even planned on calling their ip phone the iPhone until they came up with this plan to extort money from apple.



    I am boycotting Cisco/Linksys now because I think that they showed poor character by pulling this stunt. I hope that apple doesn't give them any money, renames the phone the phone, and sues them if they try to use iPhone outside the US (because I think that apple has the rights to the name in the rest of the world, if I understand things correctly).
  • Reply 36 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    They're not a cellphone. They don't use a cellular network. Therefore, "We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone" is perfectly accurate. They're phones, but not cellphones.







    That's true, Cisco will have to prove that their ™ covers the class of the devices that the iPhone is in. If the ™ is too generic, i. e. covers to much territory, it's an uphill battle for the ™ holder, since they have to show actual products covering all segments in the ™ IMHO.



  • Reply 37 of 84
    Several good points above, the iPhone name was trademarked in 1996 (if I read correctly), Cisco purchased the company in 2000, but didn't actually use the name till several months ago, long after the 'iPhone' rumors started. Apple really did start the whole 'i'- product naming trend, and coupled with the fact the phone effort that Apple has been working on has been dubbed the 'iPhone' by the media for the last year at least, Apple may have a valid argument in court. This looks more and more like Cisco trying to capitalize on the "iPhone" name and leverage it to get some inoperability, or money, from Apple. That being said filing the lawsuit was probably just a formality, I expect after all the posturing there will be an agreement.
  • Reply 38 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skipjakk View Post


    Several good points above, the iPhone name was trademarked in 1996 (if I read correctly), Cisco purchased the company in 2000, but didn't actually use the name till several months ago, long after the 'iPhone' rumors started. Apple really did start the whole 'i'- product naming trend, and coupled with the fact the phone effort that Apple has been working on has been dubbed the 'iPhone' by the media for the last year at least, Apple may have a valid argument in court. This looks more and more like Cisco trying to capitalize on the "iPhone" name and leverage it to get some inoperability, or money, from Apple. That being said filing the lawsuit was probably just a formality, I expect after all the posturing there will be an agreement.



    Doesn't really matter who or what has been calling the iPhone an Apple product, unless a judge could be convinced it has become a common (i.e.: generic) name. This would be bad for Apple also. They should make the deal with Cisco or be prepared to go with ApplePhone.
  • Reply 39 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Doesn't really matter who or what has been calling the iPhone an Apple product, unless a judge could be convinced it has become a common (i.e.: generic) name. This would be bad for Apple also. They should make the deal with Cisco or be prepared to go with ApplePhone.







    Seriously, are you a ™ attorney? Because if you are then you're opinion would carry some weight. Myself, I don't have a clue, I'm just looking at the facts as I know them, those facts suggest to me at least, that there are some merits Apple has here (legal and/or PR wise).



  • Reply 40 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post






    Seriously, are you a ? attorney? Because if you are then you're opinion would carry some weight. Myself, I don't have a clue, I'm just looking at the facts as I know them, those facts suggest to me at least, that there are some merits Apple has here (legal and/or PR wise).







    No, I am not an attorney, but in the course of my business I have had to research and make myself familiar with the legal implications of trademark, copyright and patent law. So I'm fairly familiar with this area.
Sign In or Register to comment.