iPhone vs. iPhone: Cisco and Apple play nice

Apple "iPhone," huh? As we're all aware, that's the name of the new Linksys VoIP phone which Cisco (Linksys' parent company) owns the trademark to. So what's next? Another protracted legal battle for Apple? Oh hells no, son. After Steve dropped their latest i-bomb, Cisco told MarketWatch that they've been in "extensive discussions" with Apple recently and "it is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document. We expect to receive a signed agreement today (Tuesday)." Sweet.

[Mike @ Jan 9th 2007 11:43PM]

Why would I want to watch this???

[TheCount @ Jan 10th 2007 12:18AM]

What's funny is that I would never imagine something like this working in reverse. Apple would NEVER EVER EVER share a product name with anyone, hell, they've made policy of suing people over this stuff.

[Dan @ Jan 9th 2007 11:09PM]

apple should just give up the name

[corey @ Jan 11th 2007 5:13PM]

r u saying u dont like apple? cuz helllllooooo!!! they're the best and u all know it!

[mrsalty @ Jan 9th 2007 11:10PM]

I wonder what the contract says. Apple can not go into the VOIP space or something. This is Apple we are talking about contracts are for sissies, they are ment to be broken sosume!!!!

[marty @ Jan 9th 2007 11:26PM]

ya, thats gotta be some tight contract

[o rly @ Jan 9th 2007 11:32PM]

Cisco is obviously the winner in this situation, I just wonder what they are getting (lump sum, cash per phone sold, "leased" name, stock options, Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc)

[cdman98 @ Jan 9th 2007 11:54PM]

mrsalty has it, they probably can't do VOIP.

There both phones but using different technology's and have different purposes. Now where the trick lies in how confused consumers are by identically named devices that both are phones. I would assume not much confusion because if your in a Cingular (Ma Bell)err ATT store you know your getting a Cell phone. If your at Best BuyT and arn't signing a 2 year contract for cell service you getting the VOIP phone.

So Its best they agree because it could be a long court case and surely Apple would have more to loose and faces an uphill battle vs a solid US trademark owned by Cisco Systems (linksys).

[Jeremy @ Jan 9th 2007 11:54PM]

Hopefully they go for the Steve Jobs turtlenecks.

[BK @ Jan 10th 2007 9:02AM]

You seriously don't think LinkSys lent Apple the "iPhone" name for free do you? I hope you're not that naive.

[MKinMotion @ Jan 10th 2007 12:20AM]

But there's so much brand recognition with Cisco's iPhone how is Apple going to out buzz Cisco?

Sarcasm, of course.

[Brian @ Jan 10th 2007 1:47AM]

Apple must be paying out the wahzoo to avoid a lawsuit. They know they couldn't win this lawsuit (who is more familiar with trademark infringment than Apple?), so Cisco must have got their greed on.

[Cory @ Jan 10th 2007 2:01AM]

only problem i see is the weaka** 4 or 8gb harddrive

[CombinedEffort @ Jan 10th 2007 2:37AM]

Meh, Apple should have just called it iCell considering the units it's going to shift :)

[Jun @ Jan 10th 2007 4:28AM]

I kind of like how Apple change their name for iTV to (Apple logo)TV because it makes the product looks bolder and confident that consumer will easily recognize it, maybe they can do the same for iPhone and take out that "i" and replace it with (Apple logo).

[Esat @ Jan 10th 2007 5:10AM]

Maybe the CEO of Cisco is just swapping the name for a free iPhone?

[Mark Nelson @ Jan 10th 2007 5:19AM]

Apple is probably paying a royalty per unit sold (that's gotta hurt). Or a percentage of total product sales: phones, accessories, services, etc (that's gotta really hurt). And the contract is probably "Ad-Infinitum at a fixed percentage."

However, they probabably did extensive consumer focus testing of product names (or at least consumer polling of names) and came away with such a high rating for "iPhone" in terms of:

- product differentiation,
- assumed quality,
- assumed value,
- consumer willingness to purchase product,
- product name parity with product features,

that they decided the amount of money (and restrictions) Cisco was asking for were CHEAP (read: ACCEPTABLE) compared to the value of having the "iPhone" name for the product's introduction.

I assume other names tossed about were:

- iPod Mobile (isn't every 'iPod' mobile...?)
- iTalk
- AppleTalk
- ApplePhone

And stuff like that. And of all the names that are Apple or iPod-esque, iPhone is certainly the coolest.

---

Hey, just had a thought that Apple could have paid a huge lump sum (billion dollar range) to get the name back "in toto." We'll know for sure once Apple releases financial statements.

[J.Ho @ Jan 10th 2007 11:24AM]

AppleTalk? Now someone here hasn't been using an Mac for very long.

[Revels @ Jan 10th 2007 5:23AM]

So how long before someone develops a Skype wi-fi client?

[joe @ Jan 10th 2007 8:01AM]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/

didn't LG make this first?

[joe @ Jan 10th 2007 8:02AM]

apple copying a korean phone. who would've thought

[joe @ Jan 10th 2007 8:09AM]

http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=58397

more LG ke850 pics

[johnnyg0 @ Jan 10th 2007 8:38AM]

I really would like Cisco to do to Apple what Apple did to products that had "Pod" in the name (like the "profit Pod"). The word Pod existed way before the iPod, why Apple has sued many companies that had Pod in their names (some which existed before the iPod).

I really do hope they understand what playing by their own rules means.

[O.I. @ Jan 10th 2007 12:20PM]

Of course they didn't do it for free. You think Apple would take any amount of money to let another company make a similar mp3 player called the "iPod"? Or an all in one desktop called an "iMac"? Never.

[SCC @ Jan 10th 2007 12:21PM]

AppleTalk?!? LOL... I just finished a networking course, but had already heard of AppleTalk before taking it, despite not being a Mac user.

[J.Ho @ Jan 10th 2007 12:49PM]

It's arguable that AppleTalk itself is the reason why Macs never made it into the enterprise. Once AppleTalk went to IP, it was too late. Anyone remember the Mac IRMA cards?

[glacia00 @ Jan 10th 2007 12:32PM]

I've had the misfortune of dealing with both companies in a business environment shall we say and I really expected a clash of titans. Both companies are shockingly arrogant and hard-headed and yet surprisingly non technically savvy.

One we call "The Fickle B*tch" the other "The Spoiled Brat". One never knows what it wants the other does but it's technically the wrong way. But perhaps they found kindred spirits in each other.

[mlucas2006 @ Jan 10th 2007 12:55PM]

Methinks Cisco is going to get a nice chuck of the profits of every iPhone sold.

[Ian Jardine @ Jan 10th 2007 2:49PM]

Cisco own the name iPhone. ANd Apple have had and have enough legal problems not to fight and lose this one.
End result?
They license the name from Cisco for a significant FEE.
Plus Cisco get the rights to incorporate Apple itunes etc. technology in Cisco products, where itunes is just one of many standards.
Right now Apple pushes itunes. Mr Softy pushes WM stuff etc etc and neither affords users both. Cisco could enter this space by licensing Apple technology and make products with a wider range of appeal than either MS or Apple.
A win win for Cisco and users.

[sue_apple @ Jan 10th 2007 6:40PM]

Look like Apple is going to get sued over iPhone after all - YES!!!
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html

[EOppie @ Jan 10th 2007 6:48PM]

They are suing Apple:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Cisco Systems Inc. says it is suing Apple
Inc. in federal court over the use of Cisco's registered iPhone
trademark.

[yumyum @ Jan 10th 2007 7:18PM]

Don't know if it's only me, but doesn't the name 'iPhone' sound a bit tacky?
That's a bit like calling the iPod 'iMusic' or 'iMP3'.
I don't have any suggestions but I do hope apple comes up with a more creative/innovative name.

[drew olanoff @ Jan 10th 2007 8:21PM]

i like AppleTV, so why not just go ApplePhone?

[Demspey @ Jan 11th 2007 3:08AM]

Well I didn't come up with this (nor am I a marketing genius) but think the iPod branding would have been smarter:

iPod Mini
iPod Nano
iPod Video
iPod Phone

[rootofsilence @ Jan 11th 2007 8:55AM]

The BBC website says different

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6250511.stm

[BIG STEVE @ Jan 11th 2007 10:09AM]

DUHHH PEOPLE....thats why the iPHONE cost about the same as a 8-month abortion. They have to pay out those big dollars to Cisco.

[RIf @ Jan 11th 2007 8:37PM]

Cisco is in the consumer market

* In the summer Cisco changed their logo to help it get into the consumer market

* $500 million to acquire the Linksys

* $7.0 billion cash for Scientific-Atlanta

* $61 million in cash and stock for KiSS Technology

If Cisco is not in the consumer market, who is?

Just one more thing, Cisco has sold more IP Phones anybody eles, plus if you want to say who has the most sexy ip phone.. Just look at 7971 which is on TV shows like "24". Also leads the way in open protocols like SIP & H.323

[RIf @ Jan 11th 2007 8:38PM]

Cisco is in the consumer market

* In the summer Cisco changed their logo to help it get into the consumer market

* $500 million to acquire the Linksys

* $7.0 billion cash for Scientific-Atlanta

* $61 million in cash and stock for KiSS Technology

If Cisco is not in the consumer market, who is?

Just one more thing, Cisco has sold more IP Phones anybody eles, plus if you want to say who has the most sexy ip phone.. Just look at 7971 which is on TV shows like "24". Also leads the way in open protocols like SIP & H.323

[jim @ Jan 12th 2007 12:05AM]

anyone calling their product iAnything is obviously trying to latch on to the extreme popularity and 'cool factor' of apples iProducts. if any one disaggrees with this you are fooling yourselves. Cisco may have the original leagal rights to the name, but come on, get your own marketing campaign! i don't blame them though, thats how the advertising, hell art, fashion, music, software, every industry works - most rip off the ideas of the successful while very few are innovative.

[Phil @ Jan 12th 2007 8:19AM]

When I heard about the Iphone coming out, way before Apple finally talked about it, All you had to do is type in Iphone on Google and you could plainly see the name was already taken. There is no way Apple didn't already know about this and has already made a deal way before the media said there was a lawsuit or Apple knew about the name and there lawyers already have made there case and not worried about the lawsuit. AND IF THEY DIDN'T CHECK INTO THE NAME THEY DESERVE TO GET A BIG LAWSUIT!!!! They had to know about it.

[Dan @ Jan 19th 2007 12:28AM]

Apple is a terrible company. They make shotty products and tricks everyone into buying them. Cisco has had the iPhone much longer than Apple. Time isnt even the issue, the fact is that Cisco has the copyright on the name and Apple needs to deal with it. Ive had enough of Apple and just because they have this whole country tricked into buying their junk doesnt mean they can just go around any law they want. Down with Apple.

Dan

[Andy Malm @ Jun 21st 2008 12:22AM]

Apple has nothing on Micro-soft....come on If Apple wasn't so cool they would have faded away long ago back in 1986...A name is a big thing especially at this level of mass exposure... And Apple made the name, "Iphone" a far as I am concerned. Cisco just waited until Apple did all the work of making the term "Iphone" a house hold name before Cisco reared their ugly head to sue...
Give me a break...Cisco should kiss Apple's as_......