Rumors are rampant as to just what Cisco wanted from Apple
in exchange for some trademark sharing, and now Mark Chandler, SVP of Cisco, has weighed in with his own take on the situation. Apparently Cisco wasn't hitting up Apple for cash, asking for royalties or hedging for an IT contract -- or at least none of those were "issues at the table" and keeping them from an agreement, so there's always the slight chance a couple such bribes were already givens. Apparently what Cisco was
actually out for was an "open approach," with Apple opening up its
iPhone enough to allow interoperability with
Cisco's offering. "We wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony." Mark's argument is that with the aggressive way Apple tends to protect its IP, even to the point of bragging about the 200+ patents in the iPhone that it plans on protecting, Apple should do Cisco more courtesy than announcing an iPhone without wrapping up talks in actual licensing -- talks which were apparently "substantive" as late as 8pm on Monday, when Cisco made its final demands. No word on how this is going forward, but it's clear something's gotta give, and Cisco's 11-year-old trademark sure looks to have the upper hand.
[Via
Techmeme]
posted Jan 10th 2007 11:47PM
Seems to me that Apple get's what it deserves. They knew about the iphone from Cisco, yet still came out and called their cell the iphone. Cisco wins easily here as they should. It's not like EVERYONE didn't know about the other iphone...especially Apple.
No matter what happens, when the dust settles, Apple will keep the name "iPhone."
Pheh, I hope apple wins, iPhone looks awsome.
Apple are so eager to patent their stuff so why are they suprised Cisco wants what it owns.
i hope apple gets their pants sued. they had no right to take that name. and they chose to use it without permission. plus i think ichat mobile would be cooler/
Well see the situation is NOT that straightforward. If Apple can prove that their iPhone was in development long before Cisco's, they could theoretically have the court rule that Cisco had no intention of producing a product branded iPhone until after the rumors of Apple's phone emerged. Then it would seem that Cisco intentionally used the trademark in order to block Apple from using it. (otherwise, Apple could have also had a case that they should have a right to the trademark since Cisco was not using it)
Then there's the terms through which Cisco would let apple use the trademark. It is absolutely inexcusable that Cisco would think that they could force Apple to integrate Cisco's own technology into the iPhone, which NO company would tolerate. (not just apple) If the lawsuit goes on, I'd imagine we'll hear the exact same thing from a Judge, especially if Apple had already agreed to pay Cisco for use of the trademark.
John,
If you had read the whole Cisco press release you would have realized that InfoGear (the company Cisco bought) actually SOLD an iPhone product back in the late 90's before there was even such a thing as an iPod. The trademark is absolutely valid and was not a response to the iPhone when initially granted.
Once again, please Apple, license LinkSys technology to replace your lame ass Airport technology under the hood. I want my network to look good, but also to be efficient. Thanks! ;-)
At the end of the day, Apple brings in millions of dollars in revenue with the iPhone and Cisco...well.....they can't do anything but stare at Apple's success
Hmmmm CSCO doesn't have success? Are you kidding me? Let's take a look at some facts:
Market Capitalization:
CSCO - $174B
AAPL - $83B
Revenue (FY2006):
CSCO - $28.4B
AAPL - $19.3B
Gross Profit (FY2006):
CSCO - $18.7B (!!!)
AAPL - $5.5B
Hmmmm, who is looking at who's success? Don't confuse a consumer giant with an all around titan that sells to consumers and Fortune 100 businesses.
Disclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, but I do work for CSCO (and own *several* AAPL devices, including the MacBook I'm typing on now).
>June 2007 = Apple Pwnd
Engadget should stick to tech commentary and leave legal analysis to the professionals. I'm not entirely sure that it is clear that Cisco's 11 year trademark has the upper hand in this situation. There are a significant number of trademark cases involving McDonalds and their trademark to back me up. Think of the "Mc" in McDonalds as analagous to the "i" in almost EVERY apple product. Trademarks are not patents or copyrights, they dont get absolute protection just because they are registered. Registration is just evidence of weight of a trademark, not dispositive proof of validity. If I were Apple, i'd claim a trademark on "i" the same way McDonalds has a trademark on "Mc" (e.g.: McD's stopped a Quality Inns from opening up a new chain called McSleep... an area that McDonalds is not involved in).
Anyway, my point is that with trademark... first in time is not always first in right.
I suggest you stick with fast food chains and leave the technical gadget stuffs to the experts.
Amen to "R" Just call it "I" and the phone will follow anyhow
at the end of the day, this is what will happen:
- apple renames the phone for june release
- when people see the phone, they'll still call it iphone. the brand has already been registered in consumers' heads.
- when people hear the words "iphone", they will think of the apple phone.
cisco's phone will always been known as "the other iphone".
remember what steve jobs said about apple tv? he called it iTV, even though it's officially named apple tv. but to him, and most of the folks, it's iTV.
the BRAND is what people believe it is, not what you tell people it is.
I agree. But this is not a popularity contest. Apple will have to pay Cisco no matter what.
I'm pretty sure you could prove that Cisco had no intention of using the name iPhone until Apple Rumors started rolling around using the phrase, and then Cisco hastily threw out some el-cheap-o VOIP phone just to try and get some sort of freebie from Apple.
Apple had been developing the iPhone long before Cisco ever thought about the VOIP, and iPhone is a natural name for Apple to chose, while it makes very little difference what that cicso toy is called.
we'll see.
At the end of the day Apple only needs the name for ego purposes. Cisco needs the agreement for a free ride on someone else's work. Yaa that Linxus phone looks fantastic, earth shattering almost. And to market so close to MacWorld , like it was rushed to markeet in case of a court battle asked if they have a shipping productr. Apple got it's PR buzz. If theres's a name change, the PR buzz and the news coverage following the naming saga mean that Apple should get free PR and news mentions until it ships. Whatever it's name. "A rose by any other name..." I'm sure i won't confuse it with Cisco's offering.
I wonder if Apple would be upset if Cisco or Sony or BMW started selling a portable FM Player and called it an IPod? They obviously don't share any functionality except volume control and an earphone jack, right? So by Apple's own newfound narrow interpretation of trademarks, that must be OK.
Amusing that Apple claims the lawsuit is silly because Cisco's phone doesn't do cellular.
^
|
|---Loving my Sandisk Sansa (w/FM w/o ITunes)
The craziest part about this what that in 1993 Apple actually came out with the iPhone prototype, never went to market, saw one at MacWorld 95. But, what is stranger is that the guys working on it actually went to InfoGear and basically brought the Apple Palladin project with them and coined the term iPhone. So, it was Apple that created the machine, and actually coined the phrase but Sculley was and idiot and didn't trademark it.
http://www.applegazette.com/mac/httpwwwapplegazettecomwp-adminpostphpactioneditpost272/ Appe Palladin and other iphone prototypes
http://www.streettech.com/archives_gadget/iPhone.html This was the iPhone that the Apple Boy's (after they lef the company) came out with... of course it really wasn't an iphone. I had one. Could surf the net but didn't use VOIP to make calls.
I like the part where Cisco claims they wouldn't want anyone confusing the two. They'd better HOPE people do.
It's a publicity stunt to hype-up the iPhone. Apple arranged it with Cisco ages ago. That's all. One can only speculate what's in it for Cisco, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were something as simple as a favor that Chandler's doing for his CEO buddy: Steve Jobs.
More things Apple never released... Interesting about how EPSON released the Projector
http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45
does it really matter if cisco put out an iphone or not? they own the name and thats that.
You know what? Cisco may be right, but no one is going to care when this thing sees release in June. If it does all the things it appears to do, and does them well, they could call it the iDefocate and there would still be a waiting list at Cingular...who incidentally will also be renamed prior to the launch...everything old is new again.
R has it exactly right. Trademarks have to be defended - they are not absolute. Cisco will most likely walk away with nothing.
Besides that, the purpose of trademarks is to protect the market from confusion. In our case, Cisco created the confusion with their "iPhone". No one is going to hear "iPhone" and think "oh you mean that obscure VOIP phone from Cisco?"
I don't see what the problem is. Apple isn't _selling_ the thing yet. By the time they start selling it they'll either negotiate branding or rename the phone. Either way Cisco is not getting much out of this. They only sued to have leverage in negotiations.
whatever, the apple phone is dope, who cares what they call it
So my question is how long did Cisco know Apple was interested in the iPhone trademark. Kinda funny how they come out with a product less than a month before MacWorld(basically re-branded Linksys Phone). They have already admitted they were in negotiations with Apple over use of the trademark. They more than likely knew when Apple was interested in releasing the product based on negotiations. I don't think the name means much anyway... they can just call it the Apple Phone or iPod Phone and people would still buy it. Cisco won't get much since the product isn't available for sale... most they can do is stop Apple from using the name. This is more than likely just a tactic to get Apple to give into some new demands. In the end, the masses won't care and Cisco has little to gain.
Another question to consider is the use of the Trademark. This trademark has been registered for eleven years but never used. I believe that you must submit a statement of use when submitting a trademark you are allowed six months to use the trademark and up to 5 extensions not to exceed 36 months.
Read more here http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageB2.htm
Trademarks can't be transfered or sold like normal property - there are some restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Sale.2C_transfer_and_licensing_of_trademarks
Basically, trademarks are marks used in trade to identify the source of goods. You generally can't license a trademark to another company -- this would be fooling the customer as to who made it. The two exceptions are when you transfer the manufacturing of the product (e.g. ibm deskstar -> hitachi deskstar), or if the first company performs QA on the goods and assures the customer that it meets their specs. No transfer would happen because Cisco didn't develop this phone. So, the alternative would be to make sure that the products apple sold were held to the high cisco standards ... that visibility in to apple's manufacturing process and future designs is not something they'd be happy about.
There's a little more to that.
You can sell a mark outright without monitoring; you just have to sell the associated good will along with the mark; just put it in the contract.
Licensing a mark is when you have to monitor it for qa. All that's necessary there are reports on defective devices and some product testing. So Apple would only have to send some mfg samples to Cisco and an annual report on warranty returns. It's really not a big deal.
It looks like Apple is trying to shoot themselves in the head here.
Why not Apple Talk? A little nostalgic, and the net work protocols introduced on the first Macintosh in 1984.
you know damn well cisco planned this from the beginning. it was pretty obvious apple was working on this, acquiring patents/trademarks around the world for iphone. they surely had inside info to confirm it and swiped the US trademark b4 apple could. it was pretty obvious how they released it 1 month b4 macworld. they just wanted a piece of apples pie all along, because they knew its potential.
I hope they get PLENTY of money out of that tight-wad :)
By some of these comments I wonder if everyone actually knows who Cisco is. They aren't some small tech startup. They're the internet backbone twice the size as Apple. When they go looking for a fight, they win.
To the people saying Apple will prove Cisco had no intention of ever making an "iphone" till this came up, HA. Just look at the two starting letters, I'll help you so you don't have to back track:
IP
otherwise known as THE BACKBONE of Cisco's existence. Ask someone 11 years ago who's more like to make a phone using the internet Cisco or Apple, they'd say Cisco.
Luckily for quality assurance depts everywhere there isn't a time limit between the time someone files for a trademark and the time they have to release a product with the name (or else I'd own the Duke Nukem Forever name by now :) )
I love Apple, and I want their iPhone. I also respect Cisco and understand their situation. Apple will settle this, their ego won't allow them not to. Cisco also has these few things in their favor:
1. can easily show they registered this trademark with the intent of making an IPhone
2.They gave a heads up to Apple that they owned the name but Apple went ahead with it anyway.(Had Cisco waited till after the phone was being sold and THEN filed suit, then it would have been bad faith on Cisco's part)
To the person who said Apple couldn't be expected to give Cisco what they were asking for: That's true. But Cisco doesn't have to be reasonable in the terms it offers. It doesn't have to offer terms at all. They can just take their "iPhone" and go home. :)
Clarification on your Duke Nukem comment... Most likely there is already a trademark on Duke Nukem and this product has already been sold in the marketplace so there is proof of commerce in which the trademark is used by the company. (i.e iPod, iPod nano, iPod Shuffle) A trademark on the word iPod would prevent 3rd party companies from using terms with iPod in the name. USPTO clearly requires proof of use in commerce. Thus the significance of the release of a Cisco product with the iPhone name just a month before release of Appe iPhone(you need a leg to stand on in court). Trademarks can be abandoned and are not perpetual.
The funny thing is that this trademark worth something for Cisco only if they settle with Apple.
If they win, they actually lose - Apple will name iPhone in other way and anyway, nobody will be confused that their shitty VoIP phone is actually the iPhone.
If they lose, they lose the trademark and they don't get anything in return.
The only thing that gives value to their trademark is Apple. As long as Apple doesn't shit on that name.
Well actually, in the courts if Apple can prove that they have offered Cisco more than adequate compensation for the use of the Trademark, Cisco's demands could be determined unreasonable and Apple could be granted use of the trademark.
Fact of the matter is that it IS suspicious that Cisco would launch a phone labeled iPhone less than a month before MacWorld, especially since the last iPhone was 11 years ago. Their defense of the use of the iPhone moniker after such a gap is especially dubious when looking at the big picture. And has been said before, Cisco's iPhone is nothing more than a crappy rebranded Linksys unit, which smacks of being rushed to market with the sole intent of beating apple. (because if Apple had actually shown intent to produce a unit called iPhone and Cisco did not, Apple would have grounds to have the trademark stripped from Cisco)
Hey....I'm partial to the iPhone name, but if Apple does have to change the name, they should just follow the name that the web gave it after Cisco came out with their iPhone...call it the ApplePhone. I know it's not as pretty, but they are already naming devices that way....
itv ---> tv
iPhone ---> phone
iPhone is a dumb name anyway... Apple should call it "iPod Phone" or "iPod Mobile".... but anyways it's what? $500? Doesn't matter what they call it, I'm not buying one.
I've had a Linksys CIT200 Skype wireless handset for a while now in my office - it never really worked, but after Christmas I upgraded the machine it was on and had to download the CIT200 drivers again... Fine went to their site and did it...
Dang thing still didn't work (known serious issues with USB drivers that Linksys have been aware of for ages, but anyway)
Then funnily enough, on the afternoon (GMT) of the 9th I was attempting to install the CIT200 on my own desktop and so went to the Linksys site and found that the phone was referenced to as "CIT200 - Cordless Internet Telephony Kit
(iPhone®)"... See for yourself:
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=US%2FLayout&packedargs=page%3D2%26cid%3D1115416835852%26c%3DL_Content_C1&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper&SubmittedElement=Linksys%2FFormSubmit%2FProductDownloadSearch&sp_prodsku=1127783455701
Now go to the downloads page and scroll down the list of drivers/products on offer... Why is it that only the iPhone has the Registered Trademark logo by it? Is it REALLY the ONLY registered trademarked product in that entire range of products...
So anyway, thing is.... when I first went to the drivers after Christmas, I cannot be 100% certain, but I am really very sure that the CIT200 was just referred to as the "CIT200 - Cordless Internet Telephony Kit" , without iPhone, otherwise it would have caught my attention...
... and even if it did actually refer to it as "(iPhone®)" then, it was only a few months ago when I last re-installed the product on the old machine and it certainly didn't say "(iPhone®)" then.
So blatantly Cisco is the guilty party here, pitifully desperate to get some free cash and publicity out of this...
Whatever anyone thinks of the handset it cannot be argued that Apple have put a lot of work into creating one of the most unique and forward looking handsets in the market today. The CIT range are average or below average handsets that have just had the term iPhone slapped on them right at the last minute...
So over to the judge, and let's hope he can see through Cisco's sad excuses.
FB
"I suggest you stick with fast food chains and leave the technical gadget stuffs to the experts."
I do leave tech stuff to experts. Trademark viability is a legal issue. So my point was engadget shouldn't necessarily speculate on the strength of legal positions without speaking to a lawyer or knowing more about the law.
The fact is that Cisco may be infringing on apple's trademark... not the other way around.
GASP! Engadget siding with a company other than Apple? Blasphemy!
I hope Cisco lays Jobs on a desk, rips his pants off and gives it to him dry for this one. It is exactly what he deserves.
oj:
You sir are an idiot. Did you not actually read the article? You damn apple fanboys come in and blast without reading; I hate every one of you.
Let me help by giving you an iQuote for your iLazy iAss, since you appear unable to read the entire article:
"and Cisco's 11-year-old trademark sure looks to have the upper hand."
I do not believe that Cisco had the foresight to plan this from 11 years ago. If they did, I want in on Cisco stock for the time machine they are surely working on.
Oh, funny old Apple! It's been a while since they've done something like this, so I'm happy for it. They sure know how to make things interesting. I love when they get tough and bully someone, but it doesn't really have any consequences for anyone... It's all just a storm in a bottle. That's fun. It's not like they are truly screwing anyone or themselves... yet.
I don't think we know enough yet, but I would tend to believe Cisco has a better case.
But the point is: Apple can't lose. They aren't selling the product for 6 months. Cisco can't bar the product from market. Apple has plenty of time to change the branding. Apple isn't damaging their trademark now.
On the other hand, Chandler sounds like a puss in his post. Oh, boo hoo, you didn't hear from them between Monday 8pm and Wednesday morning... I wonder why that could be?
And it doesn't sound like their intention was to protect the trademark -- we were going to share it and use it on two separate products... all we wanted was an open door to your product? (Guess what Chandler: that is more demanding than money or royalties or a product exchange and defies the notion of protecting the trademark.)
The funny thing that hasn't been noted yet is that Apple DOES have the trademark in almost the rest of the world. This fight will prevent the LinkSys phone from being sold outside the U.S. as well.
For all we know, Cingular is preventing Apple from some sharing... or Apple simply foresees that they couldn't insure openness of Cisco... or that it's not worth it. (Using AppleTV seemed odd... Ultimately, ApplePhone could serve them better as far as branding and is just as good... AppleTV could have simply set up the future direction of branding.)
So, it basically seems like Apple decided it needed another card on the table, make the negotiations a little more two sided.
Maybe Apple even goes so far as to do a Euro launch first (where I think they have the trademark)... Wouldn't that make the Europeans happy?
It'll be a fun one, that's for sure...
Re John's comment: "Well see the situation is NOT that straightforward. If Apple can prove that their iPhone was in development long before Cisco's, they could theoretically have the court rule that Cisco had no intention of producing a product branded iPhone until after the rumors of Apple's phone emerged. Then it would seem that Cisco intentionally used the trademark in order to block Apple from using it. (otherwise, Apple could have also had a case that they should have a right to the trademark since Cisco was not using it)
Then there's the terms through which Cisco would let apple use the trademark. It is absolutely inexcusable that Cisco would think that they could force Apple to integrate Cisco's own technology into the iPhone, which NO company would tolerate..."
Trademarks are valid based on usage. If Apple was "developing" the product and there were "rumors" about it, that means nothing in the world of trademarks. Apple did not use the term iPhone until earlier this week, and Cisco has been using it for longer.
Your argument that Apple could seek to prove that Cisco was only doing this to create a trademark conflict that they could benefit from is an interesting one, but I think it is a stretch. They did release a product on this, after all, and you would have to prove that they ONLY released it in order to create the trademark conflict, even there is even a law against that.
Your last paragraph is definitely wrong. There is no law that makes it "inexcusable" for companies to want certain concessions from other companies as part of a contract, including a partnership that involves integration. Are you kidding? If they come to an agreement within the bounds of the law, then they can do what they want. Last I checked we didn't live in a communist country and so I'm pretty sure there aren't laws about what desires companies may express during a bargaining process.
I also wanted to respond to the comments that "it doesn't matter what they call it." I disagree. They've got to choose a name and stick with it early so it become catchy. If they keep changing the name around, the product loses a lot of it cache right there. This is the way consumers behave - everybody wants an iPod right now because it's an iPod. That's why every time they come out with a new iPod, they don't rename it. They call it the iPod. If they called it something else, sales would be less.
I'm not saying it's gotta be the iPhone (though by far the best case scenario is to settle with Cisco quickly so they can keep that for consistency's sake, and also because they want to imply lots of parallels with the iPod for sales), but they've got to choose a name and stick with it.
"They've got to choose a name and stick with it early so it become catchy. If they keep changing the name around, the product loses a lot of it cache right there. This is the way consumers behave - everybody wants an iPod right now because it's an iPod. That's why every time they come out with a new iPod, they don't rename it. They call it the iPod. If they called it something else, sales would be less."
Nonsense. Apple could damage themselves, fight this for a year, hold up the product, rebrand it ApplePhone at the last minute and they'll sell just as well (they may further tarnish their image though).
Apple could rebrand the iPod tomorrow the ApplePod, and they'll still sell 600% as many as any competitor. People know the product, it's not just the name. Everyone already knows the iPhone without the product existing, without a single ad.
re: "People know the product, it's not just the name. Everyone already knows the iPhone without the product existing, without a single ad."
I don't believe this to be completely true. You'd be shocked to know how many people ask me at the gym or on the sidelines of my kid's pee-wee football practice if that thing I'm listening to is an iPod.
(In fact, it's a Dell DJ Ditty that I got for $39 when Dell gave up the ghost on its branded mp3 players and looks nothing like any iPod product ever released...)
brstevens, just because people think non-iPods are iPods, doesn't mean that they would think that a rebranded iPod isn't an iPod.
brstevens, just because people mistake non-Ipods doesn't mean that they would think a rebranded iPod isn't an iPod.
morcheeba - my favorite is how you have used wikipedia as if it were a valid citation. Jesus Christ man, do you expect to be taken seriously with that?
I personally think Cisco, after ignoring other companies producing various products under the name iPhone, has decided that on the 'eve' (and I mean literally) they will attempt to either get a piece of Apple, Inc's action by asking for co-operative applications between the two devices in exchange for an allowance for Apple to use the name iPhone.
Cisco had this trademark a long time ago yes, but this is the first time they have fought for it, when, as Steve has now commented there are at least six other products bearing this name. Apple will now have to pay for whatever discrepancies they may have made, but in the end do you really think Steve Jobs was going to let some bulky two piece WiFi Skype phone 'thing' ruin his keynote or the launch of this amazing product? No. And the same way Cisco will probably get a lot more publicity for its product than deserved, Apple has been able to tell a lot of people who wouldn't necessarily have checked the Apple website but would certainly get the news from somewhere, that even if they dont want their next computer to be an Apple, there is now a device which for most people could replace the computer in their life.
My Mum and Dad for two, and they no longer would be tied to the desk for two hours a day emailing, and me coz it is damn cool. This thing is so good it can actually justify forgetting about my G500 I bought less than a year ago.
Cheers
DP123 - I'm not saying sales would be low. I'm saying they would be less than they otherwise would be. Sales might still be very high, but they will be even higher with consistent marketing. I find it hard to believe that wouldn't be the case. It's almost like you're saying marketing doesn't make a difference.
Well, I for one hope the iPhone's name is dropped. I'm kinda tired of calling everything i-whatever. The most likely scenario is that Apple and Cisco were in talks regarding the name of this device, Apple wanted to make a big release at MacWorld and went ahead with the name. Talks fell through and Cisco is making a legal claim to the name. The phone still may be called iPhone as Cisco and Apple can still come to an agreement. This is more of a legal formality between companies trying to protect their IP. More importantly, the phone has not even been released, so there can be no lawsuit by Cisco. They can announce any product they want with their internal nomenclature, it they change it by product launch, or after talks have officially ceased. This gives Apple two options..1) Pursue the iPhone name with the knowledge that as days go by the legal case of Cisco grows stronger and the deeper of ahole they dig for themselves if no agreement is made. 2)Change the name and pay nothing to Cisco.
Oh well..as the Apple turns...
Hmmm... This one's not at all straightforward, folks. First, US trademarks are issued specifically for usage in very narrow areas of commerce or product types, called "Good & Services" classifications. The Infogear trademark at the heart of Cisco's claim here is based around a G&S for network infrastructure equipment and software, not consumer devices, at all: "...computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks..." So, had Apple launched a backbone enhancement or global telephony system of some sort, Cisco would be on solid ground here. But, simply by years later launching a few consumer grade products (The VoIP phones) and misapplying their trademark protection, Cisco has not somehow magically extended teh scope of the underlyign trademark registration. That could have been doen by additional filings, but, Cisco has not prosecuted any such added filings.
In other words, Cisco is way out of line here, publicly claiming trademark rights the company has never held. Apple is dead right in not recognizing non-existent trademakr protection, and refusing to bow to any significant demands made by Cisco.
This case should never get past pre-trial review, before simply being dismissed. And, interstingly, due to these both being public companies wiht not only internal fiduciary duties to abide, but many public ethics and makret trading guidelines to obey, this action by Cisco seriously opens that company to both countersuit by Apple for making know-false publci allegations against Appe, and, by Cisco shareholders in the aftermath of the coutersuit. If Cisco's lawyers have half a brain between them, they'll give Apple a few days to make a token offer to drop the thing, or will just drop it themselves before it gathers much more negative interia impacting AAPL share values.
This is a really, really dumb move by Cisco and shows that they are not on top of their own IP and corproate governance strategies.
To Jack Campbell,
You are referring specifically to registered trademarks. There is also common law trademark defense. A trademark need not be registered in order to be protected, its just easier to defend if it is registered (the registration puts everyone on constructive notice). Anyway, even if Cisco originally registered for a specific use, the trademark can still apply to unregistered products/services as long as there is an association of the mark to the product/service and use by another entity would dilute that association.
Cisco, in my opinion, loses on other grounds. I think their use of "i" on a consumer electronic that is not an accessory dilutes apple's trademark. Everyone (except a few small subset of well informed individuals) would automatically assume an iPhone was an apple product. This is because people associate "i" with apple. Cisco's trademark, i think, dilutes apples brand name and is therefore not protected and can be enjoined... registration or not.
Jack, are you a bluffing lawyer or just a frightened Apple fanboy? If this is so cut-and-dry, why did Apple approach Cisco to begin with? Why didn't Apple file for the trademark two days ago?
A little googling will tell you "The InfoGear iPhone, a phone-plus-Internet device, marries basic surfing amenities (sorry, no Shockwave or Java) with standard telephone features." Wow, that's like, soooo different.
Two more things:
1. I wish like hell this comments system permitted edits of typos. I guess I'll have to be more careful hence when posting.
2.[rant] This little episode just further reinforces my beliefs about the failing quality of journalism in the US. There is not a single writer who has pointed out the plain absurdity of Cisco's nonsensical claims and lawsuit. Everyone simply is fanning the flame of controversy, to gain readership and hits. Do publications no longer hire writers (or editors) who care about their credibility, and who actually have specific knowledge of the industries and topics they cover? I guess not. [end rant]
To 'R':
Agreed, but with this case Cisco not having an underlying resgitration on this G&S class, and not hahvign any history of filing added G&S coverage(s) combines suspiciously wiht its 'sudden' December market launch and PR blitz for its new phones... after 11-years of not being aggressive at all wih eitehr products using this tradename or protections/actions to keep this tardename secure. After a decade of dormancy, they popped up into high gear a month prior to MWSF, with no track record of products or trademark rigths assertions.
Again, I think all the involved factors clearly paint Cisco as the manipulative demon here, and Apple as simply acting within acepted trademark usage norms. We'll see if the magistrate at case review agrees.
apple approached cisco because law suits are expense, and out of court agreements are not. even if apple is right, they'd have to have a law suit to establish it. all major litigants take legitimate steps to out of court agreements before taking a case to court. apple approaching cisco is a gesture without any underlying meaning.
Kinda fitting justice given all the iAnything related suits followed by apple.
If they dont settle or just lease the name to apple anyone with an iAnything product suddenly has a much better chance to push apple over.
Either way the name 'iPhone' is already ettched into the audience it will take a MAJOR pr overhaul to get that corrected now.
"The craziest part about this what that in 1993 Apple actually came out with the iPhone prototype, never went to market, saw one at MacWorld 95. But, what is stranger is that the guys working on it actually went to InfoGear and basically brought the Apple Palladin project with them and coined the term iPhone."
And guess who the head of operation from InfoGear ended up at? Head of product development at Linksys!
What's the problem with Apple? First it starts suing just about every company that has "Pod" or "i" in their name like the Profit Pod (an arcade money counting machine), they even sued those who existed BEFORE the iPOD!!
Now they're using an already trademarked name for one of their product and want to get away with it?
I really hope Apple will pay through the nose on that one. They deserve to be treated the same way they treated others.
"It's almost like you're saying marketing doesn't make a difference." No, I'm saying marketing is a lot more than just "naming." You are suggesting that naming is everything and marketing is just naming. No impact would occur if Apple had to rebrand either of these very successfully marketed devices.
So I guess Cisco wasnt too happy Apple announced iPhone ahead of their agreement... and now the lawsuit has been filed:
http://investor.cisco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=81192&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=949340&highlight=
I posted this as a comment on the Cisco blog -- but it's been a while now and they haven't approved it yet. (Gee, I wonder why!)
To Cisco:
Interesting. So you want to use the trademark that they wish to use as leverage to force them to design their product in a certain way (i.e. to use cisco great or to interop with your iPhones).
Clever.
I wonder if there's a legal doctrine of "misuse of a trademark" just as there is for "misuse of a copyright."
At the end of the day, no one is going to care or even know what Cisco/Linksys's product is. How many people have purchased these iPhone products from Cisco, even though they've been out for a year now? How many consumers even know that Cisco even makes something called the iPhone? You can't even buy one from Best Buy, Circuit City, or CompUSA. And what about the other iPhones that are out there, like these?
http://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Skype-Ready-Phone-Black/dp/B000I6MB1W/sr=8-2/qid=1168538623/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-9985817-5754063?ie=UTF8&s=electronics
http://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Skype-Ready-Phone-Black/dp/B000I0U5HU/sr=8-4/qid=1168538671/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-9985817-5754063?ie=UTF8&s=electronics
Um, one problem with your theory. The Apple "iPhone" you link to wasn't called an iPhone. You make it sound as if Apple had already showed an "iPhone" and used the name, but per your link, it wasn't called an iPhone.
at the end of the day it's not going to matter because apple came to the party too late. how many people do you actually think are going to drop $500 for a phone? it's not as though there is a precedence of this happening. there's a reason people go for the "free phone with activation" plans.
a large majority of americans already have ipods and aren't going to shell out for another one. add to that the fact that most americans just want their phone to be a phone and you now have a product that apple will sell to about 1% of the market. and most of that will be to fan boys that would buy steve jobs' poo in a box just so they could feel special. not everything that comes out of cupertino is gold.
oh, and wait until july, when those shiny, glossy phones are all covered in scratches. remember the 1st gen. nanos?
There is a consensus out here in South San Jose that both Apple and Cisco are in bed together...duh! Two larger than large local figures who rely on eachother's technology and benefit from eachother's sucsess. Look at the obvious, this is all staged for publicity. Both companies have too much to gain from this story to let it go away quietly.