Well, this was just dumb on Apple's part. They should know better than to be negotiating with another company over trademarks for the name of a product they were going to announce the next day. If they wanted to use the iPhone name, they should have had an agreement on this months ago.
Whoever at Apple bungled this one probably doesn't do so hot buying used cars either.
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?
--DotComCTO
IF iPhone is running OSX, or at least the core services of it, then, guess what? It IS a VOIP phone. Just have to have Skype or Yahoo or Google write a customized version of their software for it, and boom, VOIP Phone. It already has 802.11b/g.
What I don't understand is why Apple didn't Trademark everything "i" under the sun right after they released the iMac in '97. i(Name) is clearly an Apple thing, and everyone thinks of an Apple product whenever it is used, regardless of who actually makes it. If Apple had been thinking ahead they wouldn't have to worry about it now or anytime in the future. They should have even Trademarked "iCrap", just in case they ever get into the digital toilet business (well... people never thought they'd get into the phone business).
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!
Tell me what categories those trademarks are in. Unless the categories are the same, they wouldn't have much luck unless maybe the logo is the same. Trademarks with the same name are allowed in other categories. The categories are pretty fine-grained too.
AP just posted a story, and here is an excerpt -- my reaction to Apple's lame response is, "uh-oh" \
-----
''We believe that Cisco's U.S. trademark registration is tenuous at best,'' she said. ''Apple's the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone. And if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we will prevail.''
Apple is the first to use the iPhone name in a cell phone? I suppose that's true in certain terms but the distinctions between cellular and wireless computer networking is getting smaller. If Sprint's WiMax system gets rolled out and Cisco makes a phone for that, then the distinctions between the two products would be almost completely moot. Apple has been denying the existence of the project and the name until Tuesday. Cisco's product was announced two weeks before Apple's. Apple fans have been using the name before as a convenient place holder, but that has nothing to do with Apple itself.
This is an interesting case so far for 3 primary reasons. Firstly I am amazed that the name was registered in the first place. Phone is a generic description which under normal situations would be declined because the product is a phone and you cannot register descriptive names! Secondly Cisco are on troubled ground anyway as they have registered intent to sign an agreement - this makes their case weaker. Thirdly, Apple could counter sue on the basis that Cisco is passing off their product by copying the established i-names route that Apple created and could claim intellectual rights.
As always the net result of all of this will be rich lawyers.
On a final note, I am surprised that Apple will give it such a dull name - this is more than a "phone" it is a communication centre - would icom not have been a better name?
You guys ever think that this whole scenario was planned out from the beginning?
Either way apple wins!
Even if they have to change the name to ?Phone, people will already call it the iPhone, just like everyone will still call ?Tv, iTv..
Brilliant strategy if you ask me!
Absolutely. I can't believe no-one else has been sufficiently conspiracy-minded to point this out. Hell, for all we know, this could have been part of the negotiations between the two companies from the beginning. Far stranger things have come out of marketing departments in the past. The free publicity generated by this would ultimately benefit both products. In fact, if Cisco isn't involved in this, then they're incredibly stupid because they're just handing all the free publicity over to Apple.
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?
Apple was aware of the previous trademark, CDMM. I think they insisted on using it because everyone referred to the mystery phone as "iPhone" and Steve probably thought we should go ahead anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. It's far more valuable to Apple as a brand... but damn. Oh, well. It's still not too late to call it MoPho?.
I think it's sad that there's going to be a fight over a name as lame as "iPhone" anyway. Is there really a good reason for Apple not to use "iPod" (got a nice ring to it - lol) for this product? "iPod" doesn't reduce the feature set down to one set of capabilities like "iPhone" does, and we've already seen successive generations of iPod add new features, totally unrelated to its original, musical purpose (photos, videos, now mobile communications), so we're used to it...
Comments
EDIT: They need an Apple logo smiley so we can describe Apple's products now.
- Xidius
1. is by the problem called Cisco
2. the other is by a different maker, and Cisco has not moved to block it
http://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Skype-R...&s=electronics
They have no chance with their suit if they don't press each time. THey want to stop Apple, that's all.
Don't know if this has been posted before but www.amazon.com lists 2 iPhones
1. is by the problem called Cisco
2. the other is by a different maker, and Cisco has not moved to block it
http://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Skype-R...&s=electronics
They have no chance with their suit if they don't press each time. THey want to stop Apple, that's all.
Cisco did copyright the name therefore they have every legal right to make Apple:
1. change the name
2. Apple pays Cisco $$$ to use the name.
Apple should have copyrighted the "i"phone name when they started pondering making a phone. This would have solved the problem.
Why does Apple want to butt head with Cisco when Apple has zero chance of winning?
Just change the friggin name or work out a deal with Cisco.
Laws are made to be followed and respected and Apple is not above the law.
Either way apple wins!
Even if they have to change the name to Phone, people will already call it the iPhone, just like everyone will still call Tv, iTv..
Brilliant strategy if you ask me!
Whoever at Apple bungled this one probably doesn't do so hot buying used cars either.
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?
--DotComCTO
IF iPhone is running OSX, or at least the core services of it, then, guess what? It IS a VOIP phone. Just have to have Skype or Yahoo or Google write a customized version of their software for it, and boom, VOIP Phone. It already has 802.11b/g.
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!
Tell me what categories those trademarks are in. Unless the categories are the same, they wouldn't have much luck unless maybe the logo is the same. Trademarks with the same name are allowed in other categories. The categories are pretty fine-grained too.
I think the best naming scheme would be
iPod phone
iPod video
iPod nano
iPod shuffle
I'm rather surprised that no one replied to this yet. I think that Johnny's suggestion is excellent.
AP just posted a story, and here is an excerpt -- my reaction to Apple's lame response is, "uh-oh"
-----
''We believe that Cisco's U.S. trademark registration is tenuous at best,'' she said. ''Apple's the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone. And if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we will prevail.''
Apple is the first to use the iPhone name in a cell phone? I suppose that's true in certain terms but the distinctions between cellular and wireless computer networking is getting smaller. If Sprint's WiMax system gets rolled out and Cisco makes a phone for that, then the distinctions between the two products would be almost completely moot. Apple has been denying the existence of the project and the name until Tuesday. Cisco's product was announced two weeks before Apple's. Apple fans have been using the name before as a convenient place holder, but that has nothing to do with Apple itself.
No way Apple will rebrand the iPhone into phone.
It is almost impossible to write -> thus screwing up for all media reporting and all web users searching for it.
The TV shows a pretty big hole in that argument.
<hand_wave>
This is not the post you are looking for.
</hand_wave>
As always the net result of all of this will be rich lawyers.
On a final note, I am surprised that Apple will give it such a dull name - this is more than a "phone" it is a communication centre - would icom not have been a better name?
You must be young. Go google Cicos net worth and Apple's net worth.
It was a joke.
You guys ever think that this whole scenario was planned out from the beginning?
Either way apple wins!
Even if they have to change the name to ?Phone, people will already call it the iPhone, just like everyone will still call ?Tv, iTv..
Brilliant strategy if you ask me!
Absolutely. I can't believe no-one else has been sufficiently conspiracy-minded to point this out. Hell, for all we know, this could have been part of the negotiations between the two companies from the beginning. Far stranger things have come out of marketing departments in the past. The free publicity generated by this would ultimately benefit both products. In fact, if Cisco isn't involved in this, then they're incredibly stupid because they're just handing all the free publicity over to Apple.
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?
--DotComCTO
Here is how a CSCO guy described the negotiation:
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/...ne_tradem.html
Why? Everything that was discussed in the negotiations can be entered in court as evidence.
Apple was going through the discovery process to determine how strong of a case it had.
The negotiations probably went something like this.
Apple: "We are interested in licensing the "iPhone" trademark?"
Cisco: "Great"
Apple: "How much did you charge Comwave for use of the "iPhone" trademark?"
Cisco: "Uh, who?"
Apple: "How much is Nuvio paying for use of the "iPhone" trademark?"
Cisco: "Um, nothing."
Apple: "What about Teledex?"
Cisco: "Hmmm, I'm not sure about that."
Apple: "So you haven't been protecting this trademark?"
Cisco: "Uh, no comment."
Apple: "So how much would you like to charge us for name?"
Cisco: "Hmmm, one billion dollars."<raises pinky to lip>
Apple: "give us some time to think over your offer."
Apple was aware of the previous trademark, CDMM. I think they insisted on using it because everyone referred to the mystery phone as "iPhone" and Steve probably thought we should go ahead anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. It's far more valuable to Apple as a brand... but damn. Oh, well. It's still not too late to call it MoPho?.
I think it's sad that there's going to be a fight over a name as lame as "iPhone" anyway. Is there really a good reason for Apple not to use "iPod" (got a nice ring to it - lol) for this product? "iPod" doesn't reduce the feature set down to one set of capabilities like "iPhone" does, and we've already seen successive generations of iPod add new features, totally unrelated to its original, musical purpose (photos, videos, now mobile communications), so we're used to it...
LOL. Ok, no matter what, that's what I'm going to call it. :-D