Apple says Cisco lawsuit is "silly"
By Barb Dybwad 
posted Jan 11th 2007 1:01PM
posted Jan 11th 2007 1:01PM
Oh no they didn't! By now you already know it's on, and the latest round in the iPhone v. iPhone dance-off comes from Apple spokesman Steve Dowling, who was quoted as saying the Cisco lawsuit is "silly" and that several companies are already using the term iPhone for VoIP products. He called Cisco's trademark "tenuous at best" and noted his company was the first to ever use the name for a cellphone. He goes on to boast that Cisco is gonna totally get served: "if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail." Oh yeah -- Apple to Cisco: let's see you dance, sucka!
Err...both of you.
"Take that Cisco fanboys"??? What would happen if Cisco released a handheld streaming media player called... iPod?
are there cisco fanboys?
Awfully harsh attitude, but Apple rarely makes stupid comments (think Sony management), so I guess they must feel very safe legally.
It would seem that way, but after analyzing the registration application and prosecution, let me assure you that they have nothing to be cocky about.
They should have settled this thing before the announcement.
It's going to be pretty funny to see how cocky they are when the injunction issues preventing them from selling this in the US, which will be upheld during the entire legal process (i.e., at least a year).
With the glaring absences (ms office, 3G, inability to get songs wirelessly), and the legal troubles with iPhone and Unified Messaging (MS owns several patents on voicemail to text/email conversion); I'm thinking that this phone may be more trouble than boon for Apple.
I think they're pretty much ignoring their lawyers at this point.
The thing is that right now to my eyes Apple is really the SILLY one because about 5-6 monthes ago they were doing the exact same thing about product's names, isn't that funny to see how now they react to the attitude they have had in the past ? Why do they have to act that stupid ? Is it that behind the (nearly) Holy coolness, that Apple has managed to put inside people's brains, hides just a superbe stain of stupidity or do we not know enough to be judging on the situation ? For my part I don't know why Cisco said F-U and went to sue Apple, I don't know what were the exact words and the situation that brought this suit.
But damn it must feel good to see that not only one company can sue for BRAND NAMES MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure you may be cool, but you're in a chess game, coolness doesn't hit hard when the opponent's prepared !!!
Rosie vs. Donald!
Oh ya, and Apple's trademark on "ipod" isn't silly. Ha. Hypocrisy.
by far the funniest article ever on engadget Barb you should be awarded a medal or something !! haha so Funny !! haha the "you got served" comment the best ever!!
Apple will lost this case´... for sure.
I am not so sure apple will lose this law suit, Trademarks are more then just owning a name you have first use issues, and how Cisco has used the name in thier product. I am pretty sure this close but not a slam dunk for Cisco, and I agree with the Apple spokesman, this is pretty silly. Cisco should have taken this chance to make nice and get new friends, cuase no matter what we call it, it's the only iphone that matters,
what a freakin douche bag loser. Your grammer is wrong. It's lose not lost.
btw, here is the registration that appears to be at issue. I beleive that Cisco owns the companies that originally applied for a couple of similar marks, but this is the only one that has actually been put on the register:
IPHONE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 75076573
Filing Date March 20, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061
(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record KAREN MARIE KITTERMAN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
I'd say that the iPhone qualifies as "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks," wouldn't you?
if you understood the importance of the relationship between "integrated telephone communication" WITH "computerized global information networks", you would realize that the nature of the product is in using the internet as a means of telephone communication. For a good case, those two functions probably have to be used together ie. voip. The apple iphone is not a voip device. That is how apple will probably escape trouble. The apple iphone is a cellular device, with the capability to use the internet for various applications, none of which include telephone communications over the internet. oh yeah, and nothing about the iphone includes voicemail to text technology.
They won't be prevented from selling it Mr. IP Attorney. Just selling it with that name. They can sell it with another name. Oh and check out the Teledex iPhone while you are at it.
"Unified Messaging (MS owns several patents on voicemail to text/email conversion)"
the iPhone does voicemail to text/email conversion? i'm surprised they didn't mention that in the keynote... maybe i fell asleep during that part. and also have a weird blindness where i can't see those particular words when reading a spec sheet.
Actually, I think Apple may just prevail here. If it's true that VOIP software is already using 'iPhone' without getting sued by Cisco, then the trademark can very well be invalidated. If Cisco failed to prosecute users of the name in unrelated sectors, then Apple using iPhone in the mobile sector should be fairly safe.
This is incorrect. We used the International Olympic Committee as a case study in class. They sued over the use of "Gay Olympics," forcing organizers to change their name to the "Gay Games." It was irrelevant that the IOC never sued "The Special Olympics," "The Police Olympics," etc. None of those organizations asked for permission either. The fact that Cisco did not sue others for using "iPhone" is irrelevant. The bottom line is that failure to enforce a trademark in the past does not in any way lessen one's rights to do so in the future. It is up to the trademark holder to determine when s/he wants to sue. And in this case, there is no dispute that Cisco owned the name. The fact that Apple was in talks with them proves their acknowledgement of Cisco's ownership. And the fact that Apple used the name in a very public way despite the unresolved negotations proves that they negotiated in bad faith.
I am shocked that Apple would display such arrogance and poor legal judgement.
i have a feeling that they will take it to court and then settle. apparently, they have tried to negotiate and apparently the price wasn't right. and apparently apple thinks that the public just needs to associate the iPhone with apple's phone (which they mostly do already anyway) and then it'll be cheaper for them to settle.
i wonder why they don't start a new campaign the iWhatever scheme is so last century... they should go for the aPhone. aEverything (as in apple).
Of course the only winners in this whole kerfuffle will be the lawyers themselves!
ya know, i think they're right. For one, there is a difference in that the cisco version is an VOIP phone. So instead of the 'i' meaning, well, whatever it means for apple, it means "internet". Apple isn't selling an "internet" phone, they're celling a "cell" phone branded with they're household letter 'i'.
Actually the original Apple usage of "i" was in the iMac, which coincidentally stood for "internet" Mac. Not that what the letter stands for makes any difference, but just thought I'd point that out.
The differing meanings of "i" in "iPhone" is irrelevant because trademarks are not about meaning. It's more about appearance and recognition. And the fact that Apple was negotiating with Cisco means that they've admitted that Cisco owned the trademark.
ciscos patent cover cellphone? Or any phone. Apple will win due to the fact the phones are completely different.
I am wondering how Cisco could possibly lose?
Exactly, andy. That is why Cisco can get a preliminary injunction. Then the parties will either sign a deal, or Apple will change the offical name.
ahh.. no.
Hmmm...If this is Cisco's case, then I think Apple has a good chance of getting through this. When did the iMac come out? The "i"-whatever nomenclature has been synonomous with Apple products ever since. Would be funny if Cisco had to change, or pony-up!
What is more embarrassing for Apple:
Changing the name?
A judge saying to change the name?
Apple will have to bend to Cisco somehow monetarily or whatever. I think the more they say things to show Apple bravado, the more Cisco will be adding zeros to the bottom line.
Yeah... that wasn't their attitude when they went to Cisco, hat in hand, to ask for permission. And actually, the fact they had previously negotiated with Cisco, proving that they had originally respected Cisco's ownership of the trademark, will be very detrimental to them if they go to trial.
It's always refreshing to see evil mega corporations bully each other instead of bullying consumers. Thank you for the play-by-play, Engadget.
Apple just wants an excuse not to make their release date and an injunction will give it to them.
imagine being an in-touch IT company these days, calling your product iAnything and then trying to to sue the guys who started iT all.
you can spin that round and bring up the old "oh, how dare Steve & Steve call their company Apple when the Beatles were doing their thing...". so... hmm.
Infogear Technology, the company that Cisco purchased in 2000, filed the iPhone trademark in 1996. That was two years before there was an iAnything from Apple. It sounds like you're trying to imply that Cisco trademarked iPhone AFTER Apple started the iNaming convention, and that's just not true.
Dear Callum,
Cisco did not register the trademark "IPhone", InfoGear did. And InfoGear did that in 1996, well before the launch of Apple's gigantic "i" production line. The ownership of the trademark then got transferred to Cisco when the industry giant acquired InfoGear in 2000.
As a matter of fact InfoGear's IPhone has been in the market since 1997. So this is absolutely not a hostile trademark registration snapping at Apple's next I-Thing.
Cisco own all the Voip companies that use the term iPhone, Apple is now on a different ballpark, Cisco is even more resoursfull than Apple unlike all the little Companies they tend to sue in China, They should settle this one before it gets ugly and their Cristal Clean Name brand gets tornished like Microsoft.
I hope apple's overly proud face gets a bit slapped around hehe..
What goes around comes around, Apple. That logic is actually relatively sound, and might hold up if Apple didn't have a track record of suing virtually anybody who used the word "Pod" in the name of their product, and suing a few companies for using the lower-case letter "i" to start the names of their products. They've made it clear that either of those tarnishes their trademarks. They can't turn around and suddenly say "iPhone," on the other hand, is generic enough that it doesn't count, or simply because it's a different TYPE of phone it doesn't count. They've sued for Pods that had nothing remotely in common with media playing devices.
>They've sued for Pods that had nothing
>remotely in common with media playing devices.
Please give some examples.
I've only seen reports of "pod" names that directly or indirectly referred to the iPod, by companies that either sold iPod accessories, or were iPod centric in their commentary. In either case, there was some form of commercial gain or enterprise related to the iPod.
They didn't go after the Jolly Green Giant or *most* people who use "Podcast" in their name, for instance.
And they did all of this for the lawful *requirement* to do so, to *maintain* the right to their own trade mark. Had they not done so, Apple could face the same problem as Cisco.
IF Cisco did in fact own *all* of the companies using "iPhone" *before* they started using the name, or IF Cisco made some kind of deal with them showing due diligence, then Apple may be in trouble.
IF Cisco failed to properly protect their trademark even once, they could have to share. IF it's more than once, then they may be in real trouble. At least as far as the brand implies.
This is going to take more then knee-jerk forum lawyers to figure out.
Beating Apple in court may not be the slam-dunk many want it to be:
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/handicapping_th.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
"Take that Cisco Fanboys!!"
Are there Cisco fanboys? Of course not. All of this is silly but it's a direct result of how Apple introduces products. If it were any other company it would have been over long ago with barely a word in the press. But Apple loves to play games with their introductions. Yes sometimes it works for them but sometimes like this, it works against them. They only look heroic to the most biased. To the greater industry they are simply cementing what is known by most companies. When you do business with Apple be extraordinarily cautious because they have a long history of turning on you after agreements are made.
I think the "Cisco Fanboys" was supposed to be a joke, and in my opinion a clever, chuckle to myself type of joke. I mean, seriously, are there really fanboys of Cisco?
Apple, when everybody starts suing you (Cisco? LG maybe? Who else?), you know that you're about to make a terapound of cash. Keep the lawsuits coming, they're the mark of impending financial success!
Good thing they don't convert your voicemails to email/text then. What it actually does is downlaod in the background the audio from your voicemail as soon as it is left and stores the files in a playlist that you can access in any order. What you do not understand is that the iPhone is a software platform much like a laptop or desktop PC. All you have to worry about is upgrading hardware now like it's a laptop. All the other features you mentioned (Wireless Sync with iTunes, MS Office support) are now a simple software update away, and could easily be ready to go six months from now. So what if 3G isn't in this version? It wouldn't have made any sense. The reality is that Cingular's 3G coverage is far far worse and not even available in most areas. Their EDGE coverage is everywhere though. And personally, I could care less if when I am not near a Wi-Fi (hardly ever these days), I have to wait a teensy bit longer than I would if it had 3G (which I would prollay never be getting a signal for anyway). I'm gonna get one the day the come out cause it's more brilliantly thought out and like jobs said, a 5 year leap from today's phones. Eventually it will have 3G and Wi-Max, he already said it. It'll have 64 gig flash drives/better camera/battery life within two years I'm sure. But I bet my original 8g will still be able to run every single software piece that the 64g can in two years cause they made it soooo easy to add new features to since they are not locked down to an interface and it runs OS X. Next please....
Except you ignore the fact that it's not an open platform and the 8gigs aren't for software, it's just for music. It's been stated you can't add your own software, only apple can.
How exactly is it a 5 year leap from todays phones? It doesn't do anything that my phone can't do. In fact, as far as I know it does NOT do anything at all! Well, it knows how to play videos inside a glass case. I wouldn't call a device that doesn't have a removable battery, "easy to upgrade." Unless what you you mean by upgrade is go out and and pay $600 more in a couple months for a model that's slightly better than the one you currently have.
either way, no matter if the phone's name changes to the "ApplePhone" or the "PodPhone", people will STILL call it an iPhone
This is not a patent case, where the device would need to be more directly covered by the text of the description in the patent/trademark. Here the test is "likelihood of confusion." Similarity of goods/services is one factor to look at. But is similarity, not that the two must be identical. There are also even broader protections for things like "trademark dilution" in certain situations without confusion even being necessary.
I wonder if the decision to not include 3G and lots of Internet connectivity was influenced by their desire to avoid comparison with Cisco's product. Certainly, one would think that a device running some embedded Unix variant would be capable of doing VOIP . . .
"oh, how dare Steve & Steve call their company Apple when the Beatles were doing their thing...".
Actually Callum this is one of many agreements I was referring to. Don't forget that to make the original suit go away Apple Computer signed an agreement to never enter into the music distribution business. They may have won in the recent suit but does that really sound like they lived up to their agreement?
They never said that they wouldn't distribute music. The original agreement was that they would never PUBLISH/PRODUCE any music. Apple doesn't make the music they just help sell it for the music companies. So Apple did follow the agreement.
how entertaining... maybe instead of going to court they should have a ppv Cage Match
It'll probably just become the ApplePhone just like they had to bag iTV and called it AppleTV. With their change from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc. I suspect they are just about to start a massive product switchover from iThis and iThat to AppleThis and AppleThat. Of course, the iPod is the new buzz name for all MP3 players kind of like everyone says Kleenex for any sort of tissue (even Puffs).
So... Sony can make MD Player and name it iPod? Because it's not a mp3 player, and Sony will be the first company to name it's MD Player as iPod. That should be totally legal.
>So... Sony can make MD Player and name it iPod?
No. Apparently you don't understand the arguments at hand.
If Sony *could* have done as you suggest, they would have a LONG time ago, given the fall of the Walkman to the iPod.
Intel had an internet phone called the iPhone back in 1995 as well. It's very old (Proshare days) but still:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:mh0VSCmTKuIJ:www.convert-extensions.com/format/III-Intel-IPhone-Compatible-File.html+intel+iphone&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
And it predates Cisco's claim.
lol @ cisco fanboys. Is there such a thing?? Anyways, I think Apple's gonna lose this one , unless they change their product name to iphoney.
Apple may have a point, if they can prove it.
"several companies are already using the term iPhone for VoIP products"
This lawsuit could be considered frivolous if Apple can prove that there is direct competition that has been overlooked in order to extort money from apple.
Also, I have heard rumors that apple has some trademarks of their own for this mobile phone.
Apple might also find some legitimate ground in the fact that their products are names imac, ibook, ilife, iwork, ipod, ichat, isync, etc... It is only natural to assume that they are going to continue on in that tradition. It would not be fair for me to run out and start copyrighting i-names in order to extort money from apple.
In order to avoid extortion, i would most likely launch a cheap product that fits my copyright description.
Apple needs to drop the whole i-nomenclature. I think they need to start calling things apple this and apple that.
Apple Pod, Apple TV, Apple Phone...
and for their computers they can keep the mac-nomenclature.
iPhone was registered in 1998 no?
Joseph:
The trademark Cisco owns is from 1996, and the iMac was released in 1998. So they had the trademark before apple began using "i" in front of everything
Well, who told Teledex they could use the name iPhone?
Check it out....
I think Apple has a leg to stand on with this....took me 2 minutes to find this, I think Apples legal team has more resources than just me.
http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13&contentid=443
Isn't that called the iPhone IP?
Who said they didn't get permission from Cisco to use that name. They don't need to have "Cisco gave us permission" all over their page to have gotten it.
Lawsuits after lawsuits, I could foresee Steve Jobs selling Apple to Microsoft. Just a thought. lol.
My Cisco Multilayer Switch can beat up your D-Link 4-port hub. Cisco fanboys unite! We must not let our beloved IP routing and switching company be felled by this aesthetic beast!
I'm going to make a device called the iPod, and it's going to be a way to hold your beverage in the car. It has nothing to do with music, so Apple should be satisfied. Right?
iPwned!!!
They have plenty of time to figure this out - this is just being done to have a backup if the bugs in the product can't get ironed out in time.
Also they will just change the name to Apple (symbol) phone, like they did with iTV to Apple (symbol) TV.
Arguments can me made for or against Apple "deserving" this lawsuit, but the fact is that Apple will win. In just a few minutes of searching, I found a few other iPhones:
From Comwave:
http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm
From Nuvio:
https://iphone.nuvio.com/html/index.php?page=home
From Teledex: (thanks Dave JanTausch)
http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13&contentid=443
If Cisco has not enforced its trademark by suing these companies, why is it singling out Apple?
My guess is one word: Money.
All Apple has to do is point to these other companies, and they walk away the victors.
My guess is Cisco had some kind of agreement with those providers.
"If Cisco has not enforced its trademark by suing these companies, why is it singling out Apple?"
You can't possibly believe that those firms are using the iPhone trademark without Cisco's permission! They have Cisco's permission and are compensating Cisco in one fashion or another.
Teledex is a Cisco AVVID program partner.
Nuvio's network is entirely Cisco (comwave's too). Nuvio even suggests their clients buy Cisco gear on their end.
Even if these firsm didn't have Cisco's permission, Cisco isn't required to enforce it. Owner's of trademarks can pretty much do whatever they want.
Cisco knows how to make money and they've been doing it for a long time. After 30 years Apple is just getting around to the idea.
Honestly though, hearing such 'silly' and childish comments coming from big executives is hillarious. Imo, Cisco is totally blowing this out of proportion. ^^ Funny nonetheless :)
So if Apple started selling their computers as BigMac's, McDonalds wouldn't be able to sue? Computers don't involve hamburgers (unless playing WOW for extended periods).
If Apple had been a little less tyranical back in the 90's about there hardware and OS then they would be the 80% market share giant instead of MS. Apple makes good product but they are complete zealots about protecting it and controlling it. Understandable to a degree but detrimental in the long run.
That Comwave iPhone is trademarked as "Comwave iPhone™" so I don't think Cisco could have done something about that. Maybe Apple could file a trademark making theirs "Apple iPhone™" and get away with it. It'll be a sad day if Apple gets away with another case of bad business.
Cisco could certainly have done something about that, if they needed to.
Let Ford come out with the Ford Camaro™ and see how far they get with it.
Unless of course the fact that Cisco didn't *have* an iPhone at the time, is relevant.
(Which apparently, it can be.)
And there is the possibility that some of these companies are international. Cisco owns the U.S. trademark for iPhone. Apple owns the international trademarks. So it may be Apple that is not policing its international trademarks.
Cisco must put something on the table that doesn't sound reasonable, and that something certainly is not money. Both companies have truckloads of cash, and lawsuits are bad for business.
I spent some time last night chewed through this news, and I strongly believe Apple and Cisco settle in the next few weeks, maybe in the next few days. Sketch out a couple payout tables, and one can see Cisco has more to lose in this lawsuit than Apple does. And Apple doesn't want to win the case in court, either. Lawyers could make "iPhone" trademark indefensible during the process (Cisco forgot to protect it during four prior occasions). That is certainly not what Apple wants.
Apple wants to use the name iPhone "exclusively" for a fee only, probably also hopes Cisco will share the bills defending any "other" future use of the name (for two silicon valley giants to protect one trademark sends a strong gesture to others not to mess around), but they want a better deal than what's currently on the table, which involves sharing the name with Cisco. They are willing to go through some drama to get closer to what they want. Without the drama, Apple has to absorb every term Cisco dictates since on paper, Cisco does own the term.
It's easy for Apple to rename iPhone AFTER launch (not before), as long as they rename iPhone before sales. In fact, from a marketing standpoint, it's smarter since practically everyone on the (wall) street has already given Apple the ownership of the term. If Apple decides to switch name today, they'll own both trademark theoretically. Future press releases look like - Apple's blank-blank-blank phone (formerly known as iPhone) blah blah blah.
These are two companies armed with lawyers who aren't paid by peanuts and beers. If I can guess this, I'm sure they had been through it many times. Lawsuits between corporations are not serious unless outcomes could hit fundamental numbers. (In this case. "No."). They are just chips to play a better hand of poker.
As a long term shareholder of both CSCO and AAPL, I just wish this poker game ends soon.
I think it would be so awesome if apple just sues the same monicker used for the apple tv (The apple icon and the Fone or phone.
I can see Cisco putting pressure on Apple but ultimately coming up with a mutual agreement, like have Apple place Cisco's Unified Personal Communicator on the iPhone so you can use it as a Corporate IP Phone. How sweet would that be! Single number reach...Presence...Video Telephony...Nice!!
My mistake, didn't know they were partners. Cisco and Teledex.
iPhone by Cisco is a Phone. iPhone by Apple is a Phone. QUIT SPLITTING HAIRS!! Its not like the iPhone is a Hamburger, its still a phone hence "iPhone". Oh, and who is to say that Cingular doesn't use VOIP technolodgy somewhere in their network? And most PDA Phones (like Windows Mobile, Symbian) can connect to a VOIP Network including Skype (The Network Cisco's iPhone connects 2) In fact, I have Skype instaled on my Windows Mobile...
Here's hoping Cisco wins.. Apple is starting to get annoying
J.Ho: "Cisco isn't required to enforce it."
Actually, from what I understand, a company can lose rights a trademark if they knowingly do not protect it. Then again, I could be mistaken and be thinking of some other legal contraption.
I connected two tin cans to a string and called it an iPhone and cisco didn't sue me so that means apple can do whatever they want because they are the good guys!! Cisco must be the most evil company in the world since they wont let apple use the name!! Apple will win because they have commercials featuring the black eyed peas, when was the last time you saw cisco use the black eyed peas? Are they racist? I think the answer is clear!
I connected two tin cans to a string and called it an iPhone and cisco didn't sue me so that means apple can do whatever they want because they are the good guys!! Cisco must be the most evil company in the world since they wont let apple use the name!! Apple will win because they have commercials featuring the black eyed peas, when was the last time you saw cisco use the black eyed peas? Are they racist? I think the answer is clear!
wow.. just wow...
trolling much?
Jobs has said that if his iphone penetrates 1% of the cellphone market, he would consider it a success. That is 10 million iphone's. Because of this lawsuit, many people are talking about it and researching it far more than any other phone out there. To me, this is a marketing victory and it seems like any press is good press for apple. I remember that when the RAZR came out, it sold for about $400 dollars and they gave a bunch of them to celebrities as part of a marketing strategy. Say what you want about the Razr but it is one of the most successful phones I can remember. The price of the iphone will come down significantly in about 6 months to a year and most likely during next years macworld. These drawbacks (no 3G, battery, ms office) will be widely ignored by the masses. Sure, there may not be any 3G coverage right now where you live but that was only released about 2 months ago. By the time that the iphone comes out, 3G coverage will be as godd as Verizons is right now and most likely the best where AT&T is the local phone company. Apple is so secretive that it may sneak 3G into the iphone right before it submits it to the FCC. After all, they snuck 802.11n into their laptops without announcing it.
Yo's I am not sure how old people are here, but listen to this.
I just went trough all my old CDR back ups of software I have used since system 6 and I found it.
PRIOR ART.
I am not sure how it works for copyright apps, but I think this might be some of what Apple has in its sleeves that is going to kick Cisco's ass.
I found a phone/voicemail/caller id/fax management app for system 7.5, called "IPHONE" (meaning "I phone" or "personal phone" as opposed to "i Internet" or "i Information"), whose mod dates are Jan 1994.
So most likely Cisco will LOOSE because Apple will just have to prove that there have been countless examples of other companies using that trademark without prosecution.
bout time they started cooking with Cisco.
And is suing a bunch of companies over "i" or "pod" silly too?
I'm really starting to dislike Apple as a company.
Apple will lose this miserably, and it's comments like this one that will only make it all the better for the rest of us.
A patent is a patent, regardless of how "silly" you find it.
Oh, tell me that Apple wouldn't sue a company if they created a portable FM tuner named the iPod. Oh right...
Time to bend over and take one Apple, and it's going to be so sweet to watch.
first the issue is over a Trademark... not patent... not copyright.. it is over a Trademark... say that with me... Trademark... like Burger King releasing a sandwich called The Bic Mac
Trademark - 1 : a device (as a word) pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller.
Patent - 2 a : a writing securing for a term of years the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention b : the monopoly or right so granted c : a patented invention.
Second... the issue is an Portable FM Tuner is still technically a Portable Media/Music Player... not one that is as advanced as the present PMPs but it is still a PMP... so from your horrible example.. Apple would have a right to go after that company cuz the company is trying to confuse customers into possibly buying their PMP product when they would possibly be meaning to buy Apples. That conclusion would be drawn specifically because Apples product would be a major player, if no THE major player, in the PMP market.
This is part of the problem... if this goes to court, part of what will happen is that Apple will try to prove, aside from claiming Cisco abandoned the TM, that the Cisco/Linksys VoIP iPhone isn't in the same market/category as Apples iPhone and shouldn't confuse customers. Nor is Apple trying to confuse the Cisco/Linksys customer base or future customers and cause them to purchase Apples product (especially with Apples price points and the fact that youd need to sign a cell phone contract at the time of purchase). Problem with all of this being that the court will interview the most idiotic tech unsavy people to ever exist on this earth, the people will probably still be using type writers and sending letters by postal service, and they wont have any clue as to WTF VoIP even is. Im sure the "official" layman's definition is gonna be so far off from clearly showing the distinction between VoIP and Cellular/Mobile phones. Come to think about it both sides will even be battling as to how to define VoIP and mobile tech.
If they loose they loose and they shouldn't have been so arrogant and hopefully they will have learned their lesson. I agree it will be fun to watch, but cuz i think it'll be fun to see these corporate lawyers pull out all the stops and see how far they can confuse some poor judge who wont understand nearly half of the technical jargon thats gonna come out as arguments during this case.
I can just see it now, someone buys what they think is a "unlocked iphone" on ebay and ends up getting the Linksys brand :P.
So now when anybody has the "i" name that's silly... what about all suits Apple fille for brands that used iSomething?
exactly, Apple apparently feels that they have ownership to any word that is proceeded by the letter "i" ...ain't that cute?
I am so sick of this company and the "silly" lawsuits they try to bring up against other companies.
IMHO Apple wasn't thrilled with the contract sums being discussed leading up to the launch to the extent that they decided to feel out the legal ramifications by allowing the offers to expire. The phone's still awaiting FCC approval, something that gives them a significant amount of time to work this out. It would be hard for Cisco to come back for a vastly different sum in court when there can be no damages shown since the product hasn't hit market yet. If it looks to go against Apple, they pay Cisco the requested sums plus legal expenses and be done; if not, it was a worthwhile gamble.
The "silly" comment is regrettable, and pretty standard Apple mentality. Will Apple sue _____ University when it finally develps nanotechnology? Don't bet against it... Imagine if MacDonalds came out with the I-Mac, a burger made from scratch for you (me, I). Who actually believes the dissimilarity would stop Apple from going on a raging tantrum in every court in the land?
Good thing oversized macs aren't a fad, else the Big Mac might go the way of the dodo...
Anyone stupid enough to sell their Apple stock due to this silly suit.. deserves to loose money. The people want the device whether its called iPhone or iTalk or iMobile or iMsickOfSquattersWhosProductSucksSoTheyTryToMakeMoneyByBeingDouches.
I personally think that if the Trademark office was the one that allowed both iPhones to get trademarked.. then that should be the end of it. One is VoIP communications... one is Mobile Communications... different fields of interest... two different markets. hense there not being just one ACME company. As long as there arent two iPhone products in the same exact market... i dont see the big deal.. And if a court of law finds that iPhone of VoIP communications and iPhone of mobile communications are too similar.. then all the fines and fees shouldnt be upon the parties involved as much as it should be the stupid trademark office for allowing this situation to occur... I guess they werent just handing out patents to anyone and everyone.. they are handing out trademarks too... go US gov't offices!!!
I also find it funny that Cisco has had the trademark for the iPhone for how long.. and how many IP Phones have they released so far? and it just so happens that this product that is released just before Apple's, gets the title of iPhone. I think this is listening to all the chatter on tech blogs.. making a move..and looking for a payout.
Considering that Apple went after companies with the word "pod" in their products, this is really hypocritical of them.
In regards to the POD issue... its because they didnt like companies releasing products with POD in the name in order to confuse and sway consumers' actions of consumption by using everyones general knowledge of Appple's iPod. I dont think Apple is using peoples knowledge of the Cisco's iPhone to help boost its sales.
Its a bit of a different circumstance.