Apple and Cisco return to the bargaining table
Apple and Cisco said Thursday negotiations over a controversial trademark for the term "iPhone" had resumed, and that Apple has been granted more time to respond to Cisco's formal complaint.
"Apple and Cisco have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability," read a joint statement.
Tension between the two firms flared last month after Apple announced that it had dubbed its upcoming cell phone "iPhone," for which Cisco claims to own the trademark. Following an initial breakdown in licensing discussions, Cisco filed a trademark infringement complaint against the iPod maker in federal court.
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," claimed Cisco senior VP and general counsel Mark Chandler.
For its part, Apple has flatly denied Cisco's claims, characterizing its lawsuit as both "silly" and "tenuous at best."
"We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone," Apple said in an ensuing statement. "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail."
Cisco claims that it has owned the iPhone trademark in the U.S. since 2000. Meanwhile, Apple has also filed for a trademark on the term with a broad range of international trademark offices, including a 2002 filing in the UK and a 2006 filing in New Zealand.
"Apple and Cisco have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability," read a joint statement.
Tension between the two firms flared last month after Apple announced that it had dubbed its upcoming cell phone "iPhone," for which Cisco claims to own the trademark. Following an initial breakdown in licensing discussions, Cisco filed a trademark infringement complaint against the iPod maker in federal court.
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," claimed Cisco senior VP and general counsel Mark Chandler.
For its part, Apple has flatly denied Cisco's claims, characterizing its lawsuit as both "silly" and "tenuous at best."
"We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone," Apple said in an ensuing statement. "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail."
Cisco claims that it has owned the iPhone trademark in the U.S. since 2000. Meanwhile, Apple has also filed for a trademark on the term with a broad range of international trademark offices, including a 2002 filing in the UK and a 2006 filing in New Zealand.
Comments
If the iPhones both make phone calls then they're the same thing. Two similar products with the same name sucks. Apple's trying to be a big weasel about this.
I'm sorry, but claiming there's a huge difference between an IP phone and cell phone is like saying there's a huge difference between a "crossover vehicle" and a small SUV. Both do VERY similar things, though the packaging is slightly different.
If the iPhones both make phone calls then they're the same thing. Two similar products with the same name sucks. Apple's trying to be a big weasel about this.
Is the Apple bashing necessary? I bet you get more counters than the article. But then, perhaps that is what you are looking for.
I'm sorry, but claiming there's a huge difference between an IP phone and cell phone is like saying there's a huge difference between a "crossover vehicle" and a small SUV. Both do VERY similar things, though the packaging is slightly different.
If the iPhones both make phone calls then they're the same thing. Two similar products with the same name sucks. Apple's trying to be a big weasel about this.
It's a gray area alright. But it seems a little more black on Apple's side than Cisco.
I would compare it more to a Monster Truck vs. a Euro-Import Sports Car. Here is why:
Both have a similar purpose, namely, to drive. Both phones are used to talk with. Both have certain similar features (both meaning all four, and yes, it works). There are differences though, the Monster Truck is used in dirt and mud, the Euro-Import you don't take out in the dirt and mud! Well, VoIP phones you sure don't use on cell bands! and vica versa.
I'm sorry, but claiming there's a huge difference between an IP phone and cell phone is like saying there's a huge difference between a "crossover vehicle" and a small SUV. Both do VERY similar things, though the packaging is slightly different.
If the iPhones both make phone calls then they're the same thing. Two similar products with the same name sucks. Apple's trying to be a big weasel about this.
I'm going to duck as soon as I say it, but I think he's right. It appears that Cisco had the trademark first and the devices do perform similar functions. I understand why Apple wants the name and hope they get it, but it appears they need to deal with Cisco just as Apple would expect others to do when infringing on their trademarks. (Actually Apple would just shut them down if possible).
Is the Apple bashing necessary? I bet you get more counters than the article. But then, perhaps that is what you are looking for.
I didn't think he was bashing. To think that a great company is still sometimes wrong isn't bashing them. I do realize that most people wear blinders around here when Apple does something less than perfect. Someone at Apple either dropped the ball or they are playing dumb in a legal game. It's called business, which Apple is.
Come on CISCO - sue me. 8)
Similar devices my rear. But maybe that's what they are talking out of
I'm sorry, but claiming there's a huge difference between an IP phone and cell phone is like saying there's a huge difference between a "crossover vehicle" and a small SUV. Both do VERY similar things, though the packaging is slightly different.
If the iPhones both make phone calls then they're the same thing. Two similar products with the same name sucks. Apple's trying to be a big weasel about this.
The ONLY thing they do the same is make Phone calls, the Cisco iPhone does not work in your car or anywhere away from your LAN, It also does not do any of the other things Apple's product does. Granted I do feel that it is right to not defend your trademark, however, Cisco bought the name years ago and chose not to do anything with it for a period of time, but I feel more strongly that if you name a product "i" anything and are not Apple you are just a shmuck, for trying to weasel in on the fame that has been brought to that. What is worse is Cisco has tried to make their iPhone look like it is actually an Apple product. I am going to start trademarking 'i" stuff knowing that at this point Apple will pay me off to use it. I might as well send ransom demands when I do it. It is like the guy that started buying up domain names of the big companies knowing they would have to pay him big bucks to buy the domain name.
Welcome to AI.
To me, the main difference between an IP phone and cellular phone functionality is the marketing and what kind of network it runs on, and the differences between those types of networks aren't that significant, IMO. I'm not arguing they are the same kind of phone.
I think Apple's case may be better though given the analyses on how haphazardly the trademark was treated and how long it took to actually use it, i.e. too late.
The ONLY thing they do the same is make Phone calls, the Cisco iPhone does not work in your car or anywhere away from your LAN, It also does not do any of the other things Apple's product does. Granted I do feel that it is right to not defend your trademark, however, Cisco bought the name years ago and chose not to do anything with it for a period of time, but I feel more strongly that if you name a product "i" anything and are not Apple you are just a shmuck, for trying to weasel in on the fame that has been brought to that. What is worse is Cisco has tried to make their iPhone look like it is actually an Apple product. I am going to start trademarking 'i" stuff knowing that at this point Apple will pay me off to use it. I might as well send ransom demands when I do it. It is like the guy that started buying up domain names of the big companies knowing they would have to pay him big bucks to buy the domain name.
Sorry, but that's a little disengenious. Within a year, do you really expect the iPhone to not have iChat (and therefore VOIP) functionality?
Cisco's objective would seem to be to ensure that Apple's iPhone works seamlessly with their VOIP line of products. The name isn't worth that much if apple goes with the Phone, and the name isn't really worth that much in the first place...
What is worse is Cisco has tried to make their iPhone look like it is actually an Apple product.
Can you show me a picture that makes the Linksys iPhone look like an Apple product? The packaging that I saw clearly had the colors and overall product design of a Linksys product. The phones themselves don't look at all Apple-like, I don't see any Apple design cues anywhere, be it a color / material combinations, key shapes, the shape of the corners and edges or anything like that.
Apple can just keep feeding the iPhone blitz in the news and then finally back off and officially brand it ApplePhone, but everyone else in the world will continue to call it iPhone.
Yep. That's exactly why Cisco is back at the table, they blinked first.
Doesn't matter who might win in court because it will never get to trial. Either Cisco rolls over on the sticking point and Apple gets to use the trademark, or Apple switches to ApplePhone when it ships and laughs as Cisco gets "Kleenexed" over iPhone. In the latter, Cisco looses everything except the case and the case itself is worthless.
Can you show me a picture that makes the Linksys iPhone look like an Apple product? The packaging that I saw clearly had the colors and overall product design of a Linksys product. The phones themselves don't look at all Apple-like, I don't see any Apple design cues anywhere, be it a color / material combinations, key shapes, the shape of the corners and edges or anything like that.
Sure Can. Their Skype iPhone
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper
Sure Can. Their Skype iPhone
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper
I'm sorry, I've seen that and for the reasons I stated regarding specific design cues, I really don't think it looks anything like an Apple product.
The ONLY thing they do the same is make Phone calls, the Cisco iPhone does not work in your car or anywhere away from your LAN, It also does not do any of the other things Apple's product does.
Sorry. But both products are being sold as Phones. Their primary purposes are to make phone calls. To say "They're nothing alike" is stretching it. Based on your argument, Panasonic tomorrow could come out with a cordless phone and call it the iPhone, because it has to be used with its basestation/landline. And if I wanted to start my own phone company, I could call it Cingular, because they don't do wired networks!
Granted I do feel that it is right to not defend your trademark, however, Cisco bought the name years ago and chose not to do anything with it for a period of time, but I feel more strongly that if you name a product "i" anything and are not Apple you are just a shmuck, for trying to weasel in on the fame that has been brought to that. What is worse is Cisco has tried to make their iPhone look like it is actually an Apple product.
First, I don't see how Apple has the sole right to use all 'i' words. And I also don't think they were the first (so were they riding the coattails of the previous users?).
Secondly, I looked at the linksys phone. The only thing you could argue about saying they made it look like an apple product is that its white. That's it. Does apple have restrictive use on the color white now? Hell, the screen looks like Windows more than anything Apple would do. And it has buttons! Apple doesn't do buttons, we all know that. Its WAY too complicated for people to press physical buttons.
Finally, I've got a hypothetical. If Cisco announced their product in April 2007, instead of December 2006, would the defense crowd out there (those decrying Cisco's attempt and saying Apple has the right to use the name as well) be saying the same thing about Cisco? Or would they be saying that they're going to get their asses sued by Apple and they had no right to the name, the products are too close to functionality, etc? I just can't see anyone here defending Cisco in the opposite case. Which just makes me wonder how, then, Apple can be defended.
I see it like this, folks:
- Linksys developed a device for making phone calls and branded it "iPhone" prior to Apple. I don't care if Cisco "defended" their trademark prior to that. The fact is that they had an "iPhone" first.
- True, Apple's iPhone is currently only cellular, but how many hours will it honestly be before it can make wi-fi IP phone calls?
- If the tables were turned, Apple released a product after not defending their trademark, and then Linksys released a similar product with the same name, Apple would beat Linksys into a pulp defending Apple's trademark.
I'm as much of an Apple fan as anyone else, but they shouldn't get away with shady stupid stuff like this.You don't see Budweiser developing a beer named Coke do you?
You don't see Ford releasing a truck named Liberty do you?
You don't see Wrangler selling khaki's called 501s do you?
You don't see Sony building a portable CD player called iPod do you?
Give me a break telling me they're altogether different products. Steve Jobs said himself that the Apple iPhone's "killer app" is making phone calls. Everything else, according to him, is secondary. Guess what, the Linksys phone is for making phone calls!
Two companies each with a product called iPhone with a primary use of making phone calls. In my eyes Cisco wins. Sorry Apple.
I would think it woud behouve (sp?) Apple to call it "Apple Phone" anyway. There's been a branding trend lately to tie a manufacturer's name to a product, and Apple's done it with the Apple TV. I would think "Apple Phone" would make so much sense to them. Make people say your company's name whenever they refer to it. I agree with many others that the "i" naming scheme is really old.
I've got two cans and a string!!! Think I'll call it myPhone or maybe miPhone
Come on CISCO - sue me. 8)
Similar devices my rear. But maybe that's what they are talking out of
i like it