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]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
luckydob @ Jan 10th 2007 11:56PM
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.
Lokheed @ Jan 10th 2007 11:58PM
No matter what happens, when the dust settles, Apple will keep the name "iPhone."
Storm9 @ Jan 10th 2007 11:58PM
Pheh, I hope apple wins, iPhone looks awsome.
v_dogg @ Jan 11th 2007 12:01AM
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/
John @ Jan 11th 2007 12:04AM
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.
Wes @ Jan 11th 2007 12:15AM
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.
Jean-Michel Decombe @ Jan 11th 2007 12:04AM
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! ;-)
donut @ Jan 11th 2007 12:06AM
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
Reginald Reed @ Jan 11th 2007 1:09AM
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).
Nick R @ Jan 11th 2007 12:09AM
>June 2007 = Apple Pwnd
r @ Jan 11th 2007 12:10AM
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.
DM @ Jan 11th 2007 4:15AM
I suggest you stick with fast food chains and leave the technical gadget stuffs to the experts.
jeff @ Jan 11th 2007 12:21AM
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.
DM @ Jan 11th 2007 4:20AM
I agree. But this is not a popularity contest. Apple will have to pay Cisco no matter what.
Jeff @ Jan 11th 2007 12:21AM
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.
mcloki @ Jan 11th 2007 12:23AM
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.
T @ Jan 11th 2007 12:23AM
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)
Dave @ Jan 11th 2007 12:33AM
I like the part where Cisco claims they wouldn't want anyone confusing the two. They'd better HOPE people do.
xVariable @ Jan 11th 2007 12:34AM
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.
mrsalty @ Jan 11th 2007 12:35AM
Amen to "R" Just call it "I" and the phone will follow anyhow
Erik @ Jan 11th 2007 12:38AM
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.
mrsalty @ Jan 11th 2007 12:41AM
More things Apple never released... Interesting about how EPSON released the Projector
http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45
Steve Simitzis @ Jan 11th 2007 12:41AM
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?"
one1082 @ Jan 11th 2007 12:42AM
does it really matter if cisco put out an iphone or not? they own the name and thats that.
ncube @ Jan 11th 2007 1:03AM
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
morcheeba @ Jan 11th 2007 1:05AM
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.
andy @ Jan 11th 2007 8:20AM
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.
D (tenacious) @ Jan 11th 2007 1:13AM
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.
oj @ Jan 11th 2007 1:17AM
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.
cdman98 @ Jan 11th 2007 1:17AM
Why not Apple Talk? A little nostalgic, and the net work protocols introduced on the first Macintosh in 1984.
applesucksLeo @ Jan 11th 2007 1:21AM
I hope they get PLENTY of money out of that tight-wad :)
Malfoy Roark @ Jan 11th 2007 1:25AM
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. :)
ncube @ Jan 11th 2007 4:21AM
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.
John @ Jan 11th 2007 1:57AM
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)
Andrew Eller @ Jan 11th 2007 2:24AM
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
Tom @ Jan 11th 2007 3:25AM
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.
Funkyberry @ Jan 11th 2007 3:26AM
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
r @ Jan 11th 2007 10:32AM
"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.
Juaquin @ Jan 11th 2007 4:57AM
GASP! Engadget siding with a company other than Apple? Blasphemy!
Jayson @ Jan 11th 2007 8:10AM
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.
jeff Lorber @ Jan 11th 2007 8:15AM
whatever, the apple phone is dope, who cares what they call it
Jayson @ Jan 11th 2007 8:16AM
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.
tf @ Jan 11th 2007 8:21AM
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...
Stephen @ Jan 11th 2007 8:39AM
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.
dp123 @ Jan 11th 2007 9:08AM
"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.
brstevens @ Jan 11th 2007 9:43AM
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...)
mrsalty @ Jan 11th 2007 9:41AM
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.
tf @ Jan 11th 2007 10:01AM
brstevens, just because people mistake non-Ipods doesn't mean that they would think a rebranded iPod isn't an iPod.
G. Snyder @ Jan 11th 2007 10:10AM
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?
Stephen @ Jan 11th 2007 10:30AM
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.