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!
I personally hate the name iPhone for Apple's device anyway, since the device has more in common with a PDA. It does a lot more than just a phone, unfortunately everyone looks at it as a phone first. There isn't really a term for any device that does all of this so Apple would have to almost invent a word. Heck perhaps it should be called the iLife instead of their software, you'll keep your life on it.
Quote:
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?).
I don't disagree with that at all, however, can you name the company that used it first? And is it a name that half the people reading this would even recognize? The point is not who used it first, but is Cisco benefitting because of the notoriety that Apple has created with it?
Quote:
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.
Well, it is white with dark grayish lettering in a nearly identical typeface as on Apple's keyboards. (aren't keyboards buttons?) Not so much that it is white, but a combination of those things with the "i"name. Not to mention that none of their (Cisco's) other products look like this at all.
Quote:
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.
No, I believe Whole heartedly that Apple is in the wrong here, I am just seeing a disturbing trend of Apple paying off people to do things anymore. I don't care for the name myself, but I do believe that people are naming products "i" this and "i" that, not because they are marketing geniuses, but they see success in that branding and are following along. As a stockholder, I don't want to see Apple paying off people when (don't get me started on the whole Creative payoff) perhaps it is time for Apple to shift the paradigm again, the waters are muddy now.
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.
Linksys didn't develop it first....they bought it from someone else that had already named it iPhone (the Autodesk model of business)
It is an issue that they didn't defend it before this because now it appears they have waited until someone with Money came along. That is very much an issue.
Someone on macrumors.com made an interesting point; what if this was just Apple's way of getting VOIP on the iphone without too much of a beef with Cingular (since cingular would lose voice traffic over their network). This would be a very sneaky way to do it, but I guess it could be possible that Apple and Cisco staged this to get free press for both products/companies as well as to get VOIP onto the iPhone. It's a little conspiracy-theoryish but possible nonetheless.
Maybe, but don't forget the second part of Cisco's concern (beyond the iPhone name) that
Apple's iPhone be interoperable with Cisco's wireless routers. I think this is pretty important,
since Apple sells the Airport basestations in competition with Linksys. Assuming Apple does
support VOIP on its iPhone, I'm sure they would rather you buy their basestation than
Linksys. Apple might want to somehow make their phone work better with Apple equipment
than with a competitors. It is worth money to Cisco to try to force Apple to treat all
Maybe, but don't forget the second part of Cisco's concern (beyond the iPhone name) that
Apple's iPhone be interoperable with Cisco's wireless routers. I think this is pretty important,
since Apple sells the Airport basestations in competition with Linksys. Assuming Apple does
support VOIP on its iPhone, I'm sure they would rather you buy their basestation than
Linksys. Apple might want to somehow make their phone work better with Apple equipment
than with a competitors. It is worth money to Cisco to try to force Apple to treat all
wireless routers equally.
As long as Cisco still prices the Linksys networking stuff at 1/3 of the cost of Apple's they will sell plenty. Many people buy Linksys products to use with Apple stuff now. Why pay $149 for an AirPort when you can do it with a $49 Linksys. Cisco makes most of their money on their high end equipment anyhow.
The negotiations failed and apple and cisco go back to fighting in court eventually ending up with cisco winning and apple changing the name to the ApplePhone upon release and cisco keeping their little voip phone with the name brandished all over it so whenever an apple user sees it they have to remember that time apple called the suit "silly" and got their ass handed to them cause the courts arent going to side with apple just cause the judge owns an iPod.
ending number 2: everyone becomes magically happy and and both iPhones coexist together without anyone moaning or complaining or wanting a a lawsuit against one another. i think this is by far more realistic.
I personally hate the name iPhone for Apple's device anyway, since the device has more in common with a PDA. It does a lot more than just a phone, unfortunately everyone looks at it as a phone first. There isn't really a term for any device that does all of this so Apple would have to almost invent a word.
I don't know. How about "SmartPhone", since the only thing you could possibly argue that the phone does that none others do (which I don't think is true, but don't have the desire to look it up) is the WiFi internet connectivity. There's nothing trail-blazing with the iPhone. Oh, and there's the touch-screen, which may be "new", but I don't really consider it to be a feature as much as a drawback (I'm in the "I'd rather people be able to feel the buttons their pressing, so they don't have to take their eyes off of whatever they're doing to just place a phone call or a text message". But, then again, maybe I'm just being selfish, hoping people actually would keep their eyes on the road, and not trying to dial a number on their phone - keep in mind, no speed dialing, supposedly).
1. Cisco lucked into the iPhone name, and didn't use it for anything until they realized that Apple would want it soon.
2. They pasted an "iPhone" label on the outside of a product that was still in development (on the outside of the shrink wrap box, no less), and then committed perjury when they submitted their trademark renewal with the government. The form stated that they had been using the trademark continuously for the last six years on shipping products.
3. As a result of #2 the Cisco US trademark is invalid, and Apple already owns the trademarks for the rest of the world.
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.
so apple has claim to "iPhone" worldwide and cisco has it for the u.s.
one could argue that apple is more serious about the trademark from its actions to protect it internationally, and a much better product, what has cisco done?
2. They pasted an " " label on the outside of a product that was still in development (on the outside of the shrink wrap box, no less), and then committed perjury when they submitted their trademark renewal with the government. The form stated that they had been using the trademark continuously for the last six years on shipping products.
wow, i hope this is true, it shows what frauds cisco are
If Apple hadn't used the "i" "trademark" as in iMac, iMovie, iTunes as so on, would Cisco have named their product iPhone? Why did Cisco name a product iPhone to begin with?
Answer:
To make people think it's an Apple product.
As I see it, Apple has right's to using "i" in it's products. I mean, come on, it's like a trademark and people affiliate it with Apple.
Wow! This is the worst thread I've ever read on Apple Insider.
1) If I recall correctly, the company that Cisco purchased was using the iPhone moniker before the iMac existed.
Cisco +1, Apple 0
2) Cisco didn't bat an "i" when other companies used the iPhone name.
Cisco +1, Apple +1
3) Cisco chose not to use the name and simply renamed an existing priduct by slapping some new stickers on a box in an attempt to not lose a trademark that was already granted an extention.
Cisco +1, Apple +2
4) Jobs announced that they were already in negotiations over the nomenclature with Cisco. Meaning, in court, Apple would appear to have acknowledged Cisco as the rightful owner.
Cisco +2, Apple +2
5) The Cisco/Linksys CITxxx that was (and maybe still is) shipping as "iPhone" did not have the name anywhere on the device or it's documentation.
Cisco +2, Apple +3
Trademark law is not like patent law. "Use it or lose it" is the name of the game. Apple's lawyers clearly saw an opening in the defense as Cisco consistently fumbled the iPhone trademark. It's the only consistent thing Cisco did with its (not until recently) precious appellation.
PS: To whomever said that both Cisco and Apple's iPhone are the same because they are communication devices I ask you: Do you think that a bicycle, car, airplane and boat are the same because they are all transportation vehicles?
In 1998, Infogear released a telephone with an integrated web server under the name iPhone.
Hmmm, I PHONE, iPhone. Infogear registered the name I PHONE and uses iPhone. Hmmmmm... Yes, they do sound the same. But why change form from I PHONE to small "i", capital "P" ala iMac?
PS: To whomever said that both Cisco and Apple's iPhone are the same because they are communication devices I ask you: Do you think that a bicycle, car, airplane and boat are the same because they are all transportation vehicles?
That analogy doesn't fit, and a minus point for using an unnecessary transportation analogy when it could easily have been avoided.
Who said they were the same? The contention was that their phone functionality was similar, not the same.
The scale of the networks in question are currently different (except where there are city-wide and county-wide WiFi networks, and growing) and there are functional differences in the device itself, but the phone functionality in both devices is not that disimilar, both being handheld, wirelessly networked, voice communications devices. That makes them a lot more similar than your analogy would let on. The fact that future devices will blur the line between types of voice services even further is also a point of contention as well, because the market is not static in this regard.
Comments
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!
I personally hate the name iPhone for Apple's device anyway, since the device has more in common with a PDA. It does a lot more than just a phone, unfortunately everyone looks at it as a phone first. There isn't really a term for any device that does all of this so Apple would have to almost invent a word. Heck perhaps it should be called the iLife instead of their software, you'll keep your life on it.
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?).
I don't disagree with that at all, however, can you name the company that used it first? And is it a name that half the people reading this would even recognize? The point is not who used it first, but is Cisco benefitting because of the notoriety that Apple has created with it?
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.
Well, it is white with dark grayish lettering in a nearly identical typeface as on Apple's keyboards. (aren't keyboards buttons?) Not so much that it is white, but a combination of those things with the "i"name. Not to mention that none of their (Cisco's) other products look like this at all.
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.
No, I believe Whole heartedly that Apple is in the wrong here, I am just seeing a disturbing trend of Apple paying off people to do things anymore. I don't care for the name myself, but I do believe that people are naming products "i" this and "i" that, not because they are marketing geniuses, but they see success in that branding and are following along. As a stockholder, I don't want to see Apple paying off people when (don't get me started on the whole Creative payoff) perhaps it is time for Apple to shift the paradigm again, the waters are muddy now.
Linksys didn't develop it first....they bought it from someone else that had already named it iPhone (the Autodesk model of business)
It is an issue that they didn't defend it before this because now it appears they have waited until someone with Money came along. That is very much an issue.
Someone on macrumors.com made an interesting point; what if this was just Apple's way of getting VOIP on the iphone without too much of a beef with Cingular (since cingular would lose voice traffic over their network). This would be a very sneaky way to do it, but I guess it could be possible that Apple and Cisco staged this to get free press for both products/companies as well as to get VOIP onto the iPhone. It's a little conspiracy-theoryish but possible nonetheless.
Maybe, but don't forget the second part of Cisco's concern (beyond the iPhone name) that
Apple's iPhone be interoperable with Cisco's wireless routers. I think this is pretty important,
since Apple sells the Airport basestations in competition with Linksys. Assuming Apple does
support VOIP on its iPhone, I'm sure they would rather you buy their basestation than
Linksys. Apple might want to somehow make their phone work better with Apple equipment
than with a competitors. It is worth money to Cisco to try to force Apple to treat all
wireless routers equally.
Assuming Apple does
support VOIP on its iPhone, I'm sure they would rather you buy their basestation than
Linksys.
Look, I referred to Apple as singular and plural in the same sentence!!!11!!!!!111!
I am doing all I can to evolve the language.
Maybe, but don't forget the second part of Cisco's concern (beyond the iPhone name) that
Apple's iPhone be interoperable with Cisco's wireless routers. I think this is pretty important,
since Apple sells the Airport basestations in competition with Linksys. Assuming Apple does
support VOIP on its iPhone, I'm sure they would rather you buy their basestation than
Linksys. Apple might want to somehow make their phone work better with Apple equipment
than with a competitors. It is worth money to Cisco to try to force Apple to treat all
wireless routers equally.
As long as Cisco still prices the Linksys networking stuff at 1/3 of the cost of Apple's they will sell plenty. Many people buy Linksys products to use with Apple stuff now. Why pay $149 for an AirPort when you can do it with a $49 Linksys. Cisco makes most of their money on their high end equipment anyhow.
The negotiations failed and apple and cisco go back to fighting in court eventually ending up with cisco winning and apple changing the name to the ApplePhone upon release and cisco keeping their little voip phone with the name brandished all over it so whenever an apple user sees it they have to remember that time apple called the suit "silly" and got their ass handed to them cause the courts arent going to side with apple just cause the judge owns an iPod.
ending number 2: everyone becomes magically happy and and both iPhones coexist together without anyone moaning or complaining or wanting a a lawsuit against one another. i think this is by far more realistic.
I personally hate the name iPhone for Apple's device anyway, since the device has more in common with a PDA. It does a lot more than just a phone, unfortunately everyone looks at it as a phone first. There isn't really a term for any device that does all of this so Apple would have to almost invent a word.
I don't know. How about "SmartPhone", since the only thing you could possibly argue that the phone does that none others do (which I don't think is true, but don't have the desire to look it up) is the WiFi internet connectivity. There's nothing trail-blazing with the iPhone. Oh, and there's the touch-screen, which may be "new", but I don't really consider it to be a feature as much as a drawback (I'm in the "I'd rather people be able to feel the buttons their pressing, so they don't have to take their eyes off of whatever they're doing to just place a phone call or a text message". But, then again, maybe I'm just being selfish, hoping people actually would keep their eyes on the road, and not trying to dial a number on their phone - keep in mind, no speed dialing, supposedly).
1. Cisco lucked into the iPhone name, and didn't use it for anything until they realized that Apple would want it soon.
2. They pasted an "iPhone" label on the outside of a product that was still in development (on the outside of the shrink wrap box, no less), and then committed perjury when they submitted their trademark renewal with the government. The form stated that they had been using the trademark continuously for the last six years on shipping products.
3. As a result of #2 the Cisco US trademark is invalid, and Apple already owns the trademarks for the rest of the world.
This is all from the slashdot article
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl...7/01/13/140254
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
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.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
so apple has claim to "iPhone" worldwide and cisco has it for the u.s.
one could argue that apple is more serious about the trademark from its actions to protect it internationally, and a much better product, what has cisco done?
wait for apple to move then sue
The situation as I see it:
2. They pasted an " " label on the outside of a product that was still in development (on the outside of the shrink wrap box, no less), and then committed perjury when they submitted their trademark renewal with the government. The form stated that they had been using the trademark continuously for the last six years on shipping products.
wow, i hope this is true, it shows what frauds cisco are
here is a very nice one, where the writer really go into detail...
Here
If Apple hadn't used the "i" "trademark" as in iMac, iMovie, iTunes as so on, would Cisco have named their product iPhone? Why did Cisco name a product iPhone to begin with?
Answer:
To make people think it's an Apple product.
As I see it, Apple has right's to using "i" in it's products. I mean, come on, it's like a trademark and people affiliate it with Apple.
1) If I recall correctly, the company that Cisco purchased was using the iPhone moniker before the iMac existed.
Cisco +1, Apple 0
2) Cisco didn't bat an "i" when other companies used the iPhone name.
Cisco +1, Apple +1
3) Cisco chose not to use the name and simply renamed an existing priduct by slapping some new stickers on a box in an attempt to not lose a trademark that was already granted an extention.
Cisco +1, Apple +2
4) Jobs announced that they were already in negotiations over the nomenclature with Cisco. Meaning, in court, Apple would appear to have acknowledged Cisco as the rightful owner.
Cisco +2, Apple +2
5) The Cisco/Linksys CITxxx that was (and maybe still is) shipping as "iPhone" did not have the name anywhere on the device or it's documentation.
Cisco +2, Apple +3
Trademark law is not like patent law. "Use it or lose it" is the name of the game. Apple's lawyers clearly saw an opening in the defense as Cisco consistently fumbled the iPhone trademark. It's the only consistent thing Cisco did with its (not until recently) precious appellation.
PS: To whomever said that both Cisco and Apple's iPhone are the same because they are communication devices I ask you: Do you think that a bicycle, car, airplane and boat are the same because they are all transportation vehicles?
Wow! This is the worst thread I've ever read on Apple Insider.
1) If I recall correctly, the company that Cisco purchased was using the iPhone moniker before the iMac existed.
In 1993 Infogear filed for the U.S. trademark "I PHONE", "I PHONE" was registered in March 1998.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?r...entry=74431935
Apple announced the iMac on 7 May 1998.
In 1998, Infogear released a telephone with an integrated web server under the name iPhone.
Hmmm, I PHONE, iPhone. Infogear registered the name I PHONE and uses iPhone. Hmmmmm...
PS: To whomever said that both Cisco and Apple's iPhone are the same because they are communication devices I ask you: Do you think that a bicycle, car, airplane and boat are the same because they are all transportation vehicles?
That analogy doesn't fit, and a minus point for using an unnecessary transportation analogy when it could easily have been avoided.
Who said they were the same? The contention was that their phone functionality was similar, not the same.
The scale of the networks in question are currently different (except where there are city-wide and county-wide WiFi networks, and growing) and there are functional differences in the device itself, but the phone functionality in both devices is not that disimilar, both being handheld, wirelessly networked, voice communications devices. That makes them a lot more similar than your analogy would let on. The fact that future devices will blur the line between types of voice services even further is also a point of contention as well, because the market is not static in this regard.