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 January 10th 2007 11:47PM
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.