Apple says Cisco lawsuit is "silly"
By Barb Dybwad 
posted January 11th 2007 1:01PM
posted January 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!
Yes Chazzer, and no one wants that piece of paper to break, including Apple.
If Infogear Technology still exists and remains a tiny shell company where lawyers run the show, I will worry. Cisco? They are negotiating. This is how corporations talk.
To all of the people who have terrible grammar in this thread. Especially, to the people who keep saying loose and meaning lose.
http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail43.html
It just happens that Apple suing all the other companies, is not silly, but once someone attacks them, they don't take it seriously. Wait a go, Apple. Just another reason for someone to hate you.
people seem to be confusing patents and trademarks. this is a trademark. you CAN LOOSE trademarks if you fail to defend them properly.
i am wondering why Cisco didn't prevent (or contest) Apple from registering the iPhone.org domain years ago? i mean surely it was in their best interest to prevent a competitor from owning a domain containing one of their marks. no?
and what of those other companies with iPhone products? unless i see proof that they *are* 'compensating Cisco in some way' i will have to assume they are NOT and Cisco merely didn't feel like protecting it's mark ... until it was monetarily advantageous.
Apple is simply being arrogant and will lose this case if it goes to court.
Someone posted what Cisco's trademark entails and Apple has crossed that line.
Apple first went to Cisco to ask permission and Cisco said simply "NO".
This will be bad if Apple goes to court because they will incur penalties for knowingly infringing on the trademark.
Cisco deserve to win (sorry Apple fanboys...). At the end of the day Cisco legally hold the trademark and have done for some time. End of. I'd actually like to see them win after that cocky Apple comment.
I'd say its very relevant that the whole idea of having any type of "i" products was thought up by apple in the first place. Making them the originator. Cisco is the copy cat in my eyes.
Maybe it should be an Apple "iFon" - just jumble a few letters!
Im sick of All these Apple fanboys/girls and Apple itself, for being so arrogent over the whole "i" issue.
Just because your 3rd rate mp3 player happens somehow to be the most popular, and it starts with "i" doesnt mean you have the right to come along and call every other product you bring out "i"something.
You people did it with the Zen Patent and your doing it now, Stop thinking that Apple owns the world, they dont.
The Cisco Iphone is VOIP... cant the Apple phone be used with Skype etc...making it VOIP as well...
Apple is in real need of a bitch-slapping.... they need to get put in their place.
The fact of the matter is that Cisco sees dollar signs. Cisco knew from the beginning what they were doing by using iPhone. If iMac and iPod didn't show any sign of brand direction, I don't know what would.
Cisco may win with a large emphasis on may. But like the apple rep. said, its silly. There are so many companies that use iPhone already that it'd be minute to the biggest fish in the pond and ignore all the others.
Apple stock went up by 10%. Thats enough to pay off Cisco and then have some left over for profit$.
Ok. Here's the ballgame, amigos.
Apple knows it will lose this one. They don't care.
First off, Apple hasn't shipped ANY product named the "iPhone". They've shown a working model and they called it that. If you'll recall, they did the exact same thing last year with the iTV, which, now that they're actually shipping, has been renamed the Apple TV.
Thus, there's no actual damage to Apple - yet.
Apple can get all cocky and claim the iPhone name because everyone was already calling it that. Cisco will sue them to prevent its use. All the Mac fans (and quite a few non-Mac fans who don't understand how trademark law works) will see Apple as a martyr, and blame Cisco, even though it's clearly Apple's fault.
Tons and tons of free press will be given out talking about this situation and arguing about who's in the right and who's in the wrong (mostly based on emotional preference, not any obvious legal fact).
In July, Apple will release the ApplePhone and it'll sell not only to the Apple fans, but to all the people who are feeling indignant about Cisco. At most, Apple may get a mild slap on the hand for using the name in their press conference, but there's TON'S of examples of that happening with almost no consequence, if the final shipping product's name doesn't infringe.
Or they'll go back to Cisco and renegotiate the use of the trademark and go ahead an use it legally, avoiding any penalty - but still reaping all the benefits of the PR. Either way, Apple wins.
Now, on to trademark law for a moment. A trademark applies to a category of products, and these tend to be relatively broad in order to prevent product confusion or brand dilution. You might think a VoIP phone is entirely different from a cell phone - but the fact is, they're both phones and that's close enough. If someone walks into a store and asks for an iPhone - and the store sells both the Apple and the Cisco iPhone, clearly there's room for confusion since the customer will have to define which phone they want. This not the same as walking into a Best Buy and asking for an iPhone and say walking into a optometrist's office and asking for an eyePhone.
As for failing to defend their trademark, they have an obligation to do this - but the onus is lessened if the infringers aren't likely to cause confusion or do not impact the market signficantly. Also, trademarks are regional, so if someone in one part of the world is using iPhone where Cisco isn't registered, they may have the right to use it without infringing on Cisco OR invalidating Cisco's trademark.
In this case, though - it looks VERY cut and dried. Clearly Cisco owns the name iPhone as it applied to phones, especially phones with Internet connectivity and support. Equally clearly, Apple KNEW this as they were in the process of negotiating a contract for use of the name. Apple jumped the gun and announced the product without completing the paperwork. That's illegal.
It's just that simple and just that sleazy.
Oh.. I'm sorry - this is Apple, not Microsoft. I guess it can't be sleazy.
(Yeah.. right)
Thank you Jeff for the best summation of this in the thread.
Cisco played hardball with Apple, Apple didn't like the price, so here we are.
Cisco's new phones are getting some nice free advertising too.
I want Cisco to hand Apple their asses. The fucking arrogance of this company.
Moral of the story?
Linksys, come out with any old VOIP phone fast and call it iPhone, cause we gotta sue Apple to make some quick cash.
Since when does Cisco or Linksys use ' i ' anything? Isn't Apple branding everything ' i ' this or that?
Silly is the right word to describe this.
APPLE IS THE EVIL EMPIRE THAT WANTS TO CONTROL THE WORLD. they can go to hell in a handbasket for all i care.
Let the madness begin, but seriously who cares what names are, can't we all just get along? come on apple be the big man here and OWN THEIR ASS!
http://thewiikend.googlepages.com
This is about a trademark dispute, and has nothing to do with patents. The word phone and all misspellings of the word "phone" are generic and unprotectable.
A generic name can be a dictionary term or an established part of the English language. These names , for example, "clarinet" and "trumpet," are free for the public to use. Simply adding a letter "i" to the word "phone" does not remove the term from being generic.
Here are a few legal references for those interested:
"Mere misspellings of descriptive terms do not transform the words into a trademark." Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75, 195 U.S.P.Q. 281 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1025 (1978); Flexitized, Inc. v. National Flexitized Corp., 335 F.2d 774, 142 U.S.P.Q. 334 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 913 (1965) ; Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. v. Faberge, Inc., 304 F.2d 891, 134 U.S.P.Q. 186 (C.C.P.A. 1962) ; Oakland Chem. Co. v. Bookman, 22 F.2d 930 (2d Cir. 1927) .
The United States Supreme Court has also stated that "Bad orthography has not yet become so rare or so easily detected as to make a word the arbitrary sign of something else than its conventional meaning, as different ... as the character of an article is from its origin or ownership.'' Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 220 U.S. 446, 55 L. Ed. 536, 31 S. Ct. 456 (1911) .
"Combining or malforming words so they do not appear in any standard dictionary does not create a trademark where descriptive meaning remains." Flexitized, Inc. v. National Flexitized Corp., 335 F.2d 774, 142 U.S.P.Q. 334 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 913 (1965) .
A classic test of whether a trademark has become a generic name is that stated by Judge Learned Hand: "What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending?"
A phone is generic for phones and thus so is "iPhone." Unfortunately for Apple, they will have just as hard of a time protecting this as their own trademark.
check out 'The Register'
link below:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/11/apple_citrix_visualvoicemail/
looks like the 'Visual Voice mail' is not exactly Apple's to use either..!
sorry if this has been raised..
Cant Apple do anything themself
1) Zen Patent
2) iPhone
3) Visual Voicemail
...fags
don't stop there! the earliest innovations in apple technology still alive today were made by a young snot nosed kid named bill gates before Microsoft(was he implying something about himself at the time)started.
Since when did everyone become lawyers?
The judge will probably tell Cisco to f*** off, throw the case out and go back to listening to his iPod.
Seriously, who care?
Kind of ironic for Apple to be saying "its silly" when they themselves are chasing down every tom, dick and harry (or sally) that uses "pod" in their product name.
Besides, I think they made a mistake - this gadget is more than a phone and they should have thought further than having it perceived as just a phone. It should have been iMobile or something like that - it would be catchier in Europe where your "cellphone" is a "mobile". And no, I didn't check if anyone has trademarked "iMobile" - but it might have been easier for them to get the name than from Cisco.
Finally if I was Cisco I would sell them a name - for a 2% royalty on every single phone they sell.
actually, in Germany and Austria it´s called a "Handy"; in France a "Portable"; and in England a "Mobile".
Can´t say much for the other countries as I have no clue.
Ha Apple here is a easy fix for you !! name you "iPhone" to "iFone" ever one is doing the funky wrong spelling thing, you know like slvr or peble. Now what is cisco going to do sue for the name being the same sound!!!
I think Apple will win for the reason that Apple has been aggressivly using "i" for nearly ten years (circa 1998) "i"e: iPod, iBook, iPhone, iLife, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iWeb, iWork, iSight, and iSync and whatever else "i"forgot.
Apple have become Big Brother. Their Superbowl ad from long ago has come true, only now THEY are the bad guys. Jobs needs to go buy an iClue.
Apple is confident because they know how "tenuous" litigation can be over the use of words like "phone" or say "pod" for instance.
Sorry, posted yesterday if out of sync. Slow to confirm.
Wanted to bring your attention to an update on Cisco's blog on our iPhone trademark. Full post is here: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/more_answers_on_cisco_iphone_t.html
Post, in part, reads: "Has Cisco maintained its rights to the iPhone trademark? Cisco has used its iPhone trademark in all ways necessary to maintain it and keep it valid. We are not a litigious company, but we will act when our property is used without our permission."
Before the iPhone, cell phone companies had tight control and charged for any application run on your cell phone (GPS direction, music download, etc), Apple is changing all of this, providing WiFi and connecting directly to a PC, bypassing the cell phone companies, reducing their revenue.
As usual Apple wants a strong control on the infrastructure to ensure a consistently positive user experience. Cisco’s lawsuit against Apple is their attempt to get in the tent and make sure that their technology will evolve and work smoothly with the iPhone.
Closed systems have been Apple’s approach for many years. I don’t foresee that they will agree to open up their specifications.
Ron maltiel,
Semiconductor expert consultant
http://www.maltiel-consulting.com
It is a rule (especialy in USA)-very small company can not beat very big company.
sucka :) (means bitch in Russian)
Check out this link. Might clear out some of the confusion over whether Cisco did enough to maintain the trademark.
[url]http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236[/url]
>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
Fly on the Wall @ Jan 14th 2007 1:45PM
> > 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.
Two victims of Apple's harrassment were Profit Pod and TightPod. Keep in mind that TightPod makes laptop cases. While Apple may want to prevent their foray into iPod cases, that is neither the focus of their threats nor the focus of TightPod's business. Below is what I wrote in another message, with a link to my CNET source. CNN listed other victims of Apple's bullying that had nothing to do with digital music. Keep in mind that "pod" is an English word in the public domain. Should Johnson & Johnson be able to sue when others use the word "band" or "aid"???
My previous post:
-----
Just a few months ago, they were threatening companies using the word "pod." Yes, Apple wants to have exclusive rights to an English word! Not "iPod," but "pod" as in "pea pod." Among the victims was a company that made laptop-protecting covers, as a pod would protect peas. TightPod was then a perfectly logical name. On the other hand, what does "pod" have to do with digital music? Yet Apple thought they had more rights to the English word than anyone else.
And if they can exclusively own "pod," why does Apple think it's silly for Cisco to have exclusive rights to "iPhone"??? "Pod" is a bona fide word in the public domain while "iPhone" is a manufactured word.
http://news.com.com/Apple+iPod+means+our+pod/2100-1030_3-6105789.html
This all i[PutNameHere] is so not cool anymore anyway! can't the marketing people come up with something new?
I sell tech to government and private sector alike, my client list already wants the product, they don't care what its called. Fighting for the name is really dumb or a cheap way to spread publicity. Change the name or settle up with Cisco / it makes no difference, bottom line is it looks like a good product and it will sell.
I don't care what anyone else (including apple) calls it. In June, I'm calling it myPhone.
Frank
Check this list:
cellophane
shredded wheat
escalator
granola
pogo stick
kerosene
aspirin
linoleum
zipper
Yo-Yo
These were all once trademarks of various companies.
They were lost when they came into common usage and weren't defended.
Trademarks are 'use it or lose it" items. You don't just register one and sit on it until you feel like suing someone.
The last thing Apple wants is for 'iPhone' to be added to this list.
They have no interest in taking it by claiming common usage.
They will either pay Cisco for it, or show Cicso's abandonment for non-usage and file an Apple trademark, which I assume Apple would have already done if it thought it could. Apple tried to be nice and negotiate for it's usage. Cicso apparently demanded too much and will now have to do this silly lawsuit dance.
'Coke' is used to mean any carbonated soft drink by people all over the world.
The Coca-Cola Company maintains a small army of lawyers whose sole purpose is to prevent mass media from using the word 'coke' in that context and diluting their trademark.
If you check any magazine for writers you will see ads from Kimberly-Clark reminding you that Kleenex® is spelled with an 'R'.
What has Cisco done during the last two+ years of speculation by the media to inform them that they shouldn't use the word 'iPhone' because it's a Cisco trademark?
Cicso's release of their iPhone at the end of December smells of desperation and will not be enough to rescue them from their years of lax attention to using or protecting a trademark.
If Cisco takes this thing all the way to court they will wind up thinking what Jason Fox of FoxTrot (the coolest comic in the world) said when he first saw the iFruit computer....
" iThink iWill bSick"
The most offensive thing about all this is Apple's arrogance and hypocrisy.
1) Just a few months ago, they were threatening companies using the word "pod." Yes, Apple wants to have exclusive rights to an English word! Not "iPod," but "pod" as in "pea pod." Among the victims was a company that made laptop-protecting covers, as a pod would protect peas. TightPod was then a perfectly logical name. On the other hand, what does "pod" have to do with digital music? Yet Apple thought they had more rights to the English word than anyone else.
And if they can exclusively own "pod," why does Apple think it's silly for Cisco to have exclusive rights to "iPhone"??? "Pod" is a bona fide word in the public domain while "iPhone" is a manufactured word.
http://news.com.com/Apple+iPod+means+our+pod/2100-1030_3-6105789.html
2) The Wall Street Journal Report points out Apple's arrogance with two examples:
a) They knew that the naming issue was unresolved yet used iPhone anyway in a VERY public way. Apple could have easily substituted the disputed name with "Apple's Phone" or some other temporary name like "MacPhone." Nothing prevents them from changing it to "iPhone" once things are resolved. Yet they chose a showy in-your-face attitude.
b) In his presentation, Steve Jobs used a Beatles album cover on the phone when in fact, there is a legal dispute between Apple and the Beatle's Apple music company. While things will probably be resolved soon, Jobs knows full well that no Beatles album is available on iTunes. Again, it's an in-your-face approach.
HEY, CAN'T YU SEE THAT THIS WHOLE FUZZ IS ONLY CREATED TO MAKE PEOPLE INTERRESTED IN WAITING FOR THE ALL MIGHT APPLE PHONE. Cisco PROBABLY OWNS APPLE SHARES FOR BILLIONS, EITHER THROUGH BULLVANES OR THEMSELVES, SO MAKING PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT JUST MAKES SENSE!
To the guy who mentioned brand direction and iPod... Cisco filed the trademakr in 99. The iPod was released in 01. Read stuff before you talk.
Come on serve Apple up!! Apples SUCK!!!
You would think that Steve was sitting around thinking, "What should we call it, what should we call it. I know iphone!"
"Hmm perhaps I should google it to see if its being used, nah! Pass me another bowl!"
Hmm.. its getting hot. How about "T-Mac" ? Sounds good to me. The "iPhone" was too general nowadays. "T-Mac" for sure more appropriate. Just like "G-Mac" or "i-Mac" or "e-Mac" etc.
IT'S THE APPLE WAY. SHAMEFUL STEAL SOMEONE ELSE IDEA AND TRADEMARK AND TRASH TALK ABOUT THEM. APPLE HAS NOT VALUE AS A COMPANY, THEY HAVE LOST ALL THEIR INNOVATIONS AND REDUCE TO MERE THIEF.
THAN AGAIN APPLE ARE RUN BY A THIEF.
"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?"
Cisco Fanboys? WTF? Who are these people?
Are they those who lack character, unique identity, and appreciate the smooth style of a command line interface?
Yeah, I'm sure Apple fans are really put down by your collectivism, all 5 of you. . .