Cisco
Latest
Wikipedia battle over iPhone trademark
There's something deeply fascinating about article debates at Wikipedia; reading the intricate threads is like eavesdropping on a librarian's convention where the punch has been spiked with PCP. The tumult du jour is the involved discussion on the appropriate naming and disposition of the iPhone article.It seems that the rational question of "What do we put at the wikipedia.org/wiki/iPhone page: the Apple product, the Cisco/Linksys product, or a disambiguation of the two products?" has led to fear, thence to anger and naturally to suffering. The commotion and disagreement apparently attracted the attention of some Cisco employees, who attempted to right the perceived injustice and were promptly chastised. The whole affair has resulted in the virtual lockdown of the iPhone page while tempers and keyboards cool off.If you want a taste of the secret sauce that helps Wikipedia manage as a self-regulating community, check out the conventions on the naming of articles. Highly gripping; couldn't put it down.Thanks Adam!
Cisco might have lost iPhone trademark in '06
Apparently Cisco has more "iPhone" trouble in store for it than just that prior art dispute we mentioned yesterday. In order to keep a trademark alive, you have to file a "Declaration of Use" with the US Patent and Trademark office every six years or forfeit the trademark. On 11/16/2005 Cisco missed that deadline, but was granted a six month grace period, which it just barely squeezed through. Unfortunately for Cisco, a "Declaration of Use" requires demonstration of active use, under penalty of perjury. Cisco merely slapped an iPhone sticker onto an existing VoIP handset it was producing (shown above), but at the time hadn't put an actual iPhone product on shelves for a good long while. This jeopardizes the legitimacy of the trademark, and with Ocean Telecom Services LLC -- which is thought by most to be a front company for Apple -- next in line for the name, it's looking like anyone's game at this point. But for the sake of our own sanity, can we wrap this one up soon, guys? We were kind of hoping to spend the day resting up from CES and playing that new Gears of War map pack instead of reporting such minute developments. Oh well, what are you gonna do?[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Did Cisco lose its right to iPhone trademark last year?
Ed Burnette over at ZDNet asks a question we haven't seen anywhere else. Has Cisco already lost its right to the iPhone trademark? Several specialists in trademark law describe how Cisco's trademark was registered back in '99 and may not have been properly renewed or used within the 6 years (plus 6 month grace period) span allowed. Expert Jay Behmke writes "If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark...It is possible that the Declaration of Use is defective, as there was no continuous use, and the sample that Cisco submitted was for a product not released until 7 months later." Read the whole thing to see where these experts are coming from. It's still a matter best left to lawyers to figure out, but the article points up some very interesting background about the issue. In the end, at least in our opinion, Cisco's case may fail because Ivan in package design was vacationing in Nassau that week... Sticking the iPhone sticker onto a pre-existing box? In the words of our own Mike Rose, "that's not even half-assed, it's more like like one-eighth-assed."
iPhone: does Cisco miss out due to prior art?
Apple's argument that Cisco's claim to the name iPhone is "silly" is about to get a whole lot more cogent. Although they hold the trademark, it's still seemingly debatable whether Cisco has rights to the name. Eagle-eyed reader mrsalty points out the fact that Cisco's patent filings for the "Internet telephone" (and at least two others) reference the iphone name and attribute it to the Cidco (a company now owned by Earthlink); the fact that the filing reads with the following language is even less encouraging. "Also known [to Cisco at the time of filing the patent] is a dedicated 'Web phone,' such as the iphone, manufactured by Cidco..." Yikes. It's difficult to tell whether this iphone predates Cisco's acquisition of the patent holdings originally filed by Infogear in 1997, but prior art is prior art, and they admitted as much right in their own patent filing. What's more, the The Internet Phone Company has owned and operated iphone.com since 1995, and we don't see Cisco suing them, either. So basically we really hope this whole thing will be quick and painless since we don't think anyone really wants another RIM vs NTP saga on their hands. Things will get very interesting, however, if it works out such that the iPhone name is released to the commons and everyone and their mother can make an iPhone. (Sony Ericsson aiPhone or Motorola IFON, anyone?) Our advice to the people Behind the Human Network: focus on that human network of yours and let the iPhone go, kid. Update: As some readers have pointed out, yes, a trademark is different from a patent. Our intention is to address Cisco's irregular legal activity that favors other companies using the name iphone, but not Apple. Does Cisco hold the trademark? Yes, it would appear that way. Will Cisco's lack of protection of this trademark hold up in court? We'll have to wait and see, but something tells us Stevie J. wouldn't have gotten up on stage with "iPhone" if he wasn't damned sure they'd be able to use and keep this name.
Apple says Cisco lawsuit is "silly"
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!
Cisco v. Apple II: AM followup on trademark lawsuit
As you all know by now (and saw Scott post last night), the trademark discussions between Apple and Cisco over the use of the iPhone name did not resolve cleanly and Cisco has filed suit. Negotiations were apparently in progress up until Monday night, with the remaining issues focused on interoperability between the Linksys iPhone and Apple's new cellphone, according to Cisco's spokesman. Cisco didn't expect Apple to introduce the phone as "iPhone" without a completed agreement. Apple's response? Spokeswoman Natalie Kerris pointed out that the iPhone trademark has been poorly defended: there are several other VoIP products and at least one set of headphones that are already using the "iPhone" or "IPhone" brand. The New York Times reports that companies like Comwave, Nuvio and Teledex already sell products with an iPhone name; there's also a full rundown in this preannounce post at the Barron's blog. Quoting Ms. Kerris, via News.com: "We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman. "There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products," Kerris said. "We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail." As noted previously, I am not a lawyer; my minimal knowledge of trademark law tells me, however, that when a trademark falls into disuse, is not defended against infringement, or becomes a generic word (aspirin), it's fair game for other companies to use. Cisco claims that it has pursued infringement actions against these other companies, but it seems that many of them have been selling "iPhone" products for some time. OK, time to call on the TUAW Law Squad: any professional opinions out there? Update: Cisco's general counsel blogs on the suit here; Harvard Law on the loss of trademark here. If Infogear/Linksys/Cisco had a three-year lapse in using "iPhone" for a product at any time between 1996 and today, that's abandonment. If not, they have a case. Update II: Check the Internet Archive to see Cisco's iPhone support page from 2000-2006. Not an aggressive defense of trademark, but the product was there...
Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle
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]
Cisco's General Counsel blogs about the iPhone suit
Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, has some things to say about Cisco's suit involving Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark. Chandler says that this suit isn't about money, nor is it about derailing Apple's cool new phone. Rather, it is all about protecting Cisco's intellectual property, something that Steve said Apple would do aggressively with the iPhone (remember when Steve said that Apple has over 200 patents on the iPhone and they plan to enforce them? Kettle? Meet pot.).Chandler's post also gives us some details about how long Apple and Cisco have been engaged in talks about the iPhone. Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark since 2000 and they have had several conversations with Apple since 2001. The last several months have brought more intense discussions which were active even after Steve had unveiled the iPhone.What was the stumbling block? Cisco hoped that Apple's iPhone and their iPhone could, at some point, be interoperable (how, we don't know) and Apple didn't seem so keen on that. It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out given the transparency Cisco is approaching this situation with, and Apple's notorious secretive nature. Either way, Chandler's post is well worth a read.
Cisco sues Apple for trademark infringement: ruh roh!
"It is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document." Not so much. We're not quite sure what broke down in talks between Cisco and Apple, but they ain't playing friendly no more. Cisco just announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Northern California to prevent Apple from infringing upon its registered iPhone trademark. The word yesterday was that Apple and Cisco had been involved in "extensive discussions," and that they were expecting Apple to sign up for whatever final agreement they proposed. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," says Mark Chandler of Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." Obviously all we've heard so far is Cisco spin on the situation, but so far it sounds like they're being fairly reasonable with Apple on this -- it is their own dang trademark after all. So what gives, Apple?[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Cisco sues Apple over iPhone trademark
The sound of Steve Jobs saying 'iPhone' was music to many an Apple fan's ears yesterday, but it seems Steve may have spoken too soon. The Associated Press is reporting that Cisco is planning on suing Apple over the use of the word 'iPhone,' which Cisco has a trademark on. It was reported that Apple and Cisco were on the edge of making a deal, but no legal documents were signed before Steve hit the stage yesterday.Does this mean that the iPhone is dead and long live the iPod Mobile? Only time will tell, but I am sure Cisco can be wooed with a bucket of money.Update: Here is the text of Cisco's press release on the suit. Tip o' the hat to The Apple Blog.
iPhone vs. iPhone: Cisco and Apple play nice
Apple "iPhone," huh? As we're all aware, that's the name of the new Linksys VoIP phone which Cisco (Linksys' parent company) owns the trademark to. So what's next? Another protracted legal battle for Apple? Oh hells no, son. After Steve dropped their latest i-bomb, Cisco told MarketWatch that they've been in "extensive discussions" with Apple recently and "it is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document. We expect to receive a signed agreement today (Tuesday)." Sweet.
Live at the Cisco John Chambers keynote
11:06: "Welcome to the human network" -- Chambers starts in and welcomes us. We want products to be shared across any network, any devices, any content. We outlined a strategy first for the enterprise, then in the service provider market, and now in the consumer market we're also number one.11:08: Enabling all forms of communication in IT. this is how Cisco approaches markets.: Vision --> Strategy --> Execution. Talking about the company history and Cisco's strategy over the past 10 years.11:10: First phase of internet revolution led by business. We predicted it would soon be led by the consumer. Transforming the consumer experience as we transition from analog to digital. Next phase is networked: Analog --> digital --> networked.11:12: Broadband starting to take over in US, finally.
Cisco -- not apple -- announces iPhone branded VoIP phones
We hate to break it to everybody who thought the inevitable Apple phone was going to be called the iPhone, but Cisco, which has apparently had the trademark on the name since the 90s, is launching a line of Linksys "iPhone" VoIP devices (yes, that's right, lower case "i", uppercase "P"). Why wait until now to launch the iPhone name? We can't say for sure, but we imagine Cisco was probably trying to work behind the scenes to sell the rights to the name to Apple, but things didn't pan out -- but since "iPhone" is already a fairly ubiquitous brand without even being launched, hey, why not run with it? We won't dwell long on the loss of the name iPhone to describe the Applephone (which is what we'll henceforth be calling it), so on to the gear. Expect to see the $180 iPhone Dual-Mode Internet Telephony Kit for Skype CIT400 (pictured), which from what we can tell, is merely a Skype handset; also, announced is the $200 iPhone Wireless-G Phone for Skype WIP320 (pictured after the break), a SIP VoIP phone. So, that's it; Cisco cashes in on the iPhone name, current VoIP products get rebadged to the new label, and we all rest easy knowing that our cellphone investments are still safe for at least another three weeks or so.
"Obvious" patent laws could become relaxed, tech firms rejoice
Lawsuits in the technology biz certainly aren't uncommon, and it looks like we may have one more significant ruling about to hit just shortly after CSIRO won its own landmark case. The US Supreme Court justices seem to be viewing earlier, lower cases with a hint of skepticism in regard to decisions that have previously worked to safeguard patented products. While the trial at hand concerns two brake manufacturers -- KSR International and rival Teleflex -- the stipulations could be far reaching; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously ruled that KSR failed to prove that Teleflex (the accuser) "did not encounter teaching, suggestion, or motivation in developing the product." The generally ambiguous test is a thorn in the side of major technology companies getting slapped around by frivolous lawsuits, and Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco Systems have all made time to "submit briefs supporting KSR's stand." Still, the final decision isn't expected for quite some time, so sue-happy firms still have time to submit their counter-briefs, but folks like Vonage and TomTom (just to name a couple) would obviously (ahem) love a victory here.[Via Slashdot]
Cisco's TelePresence Meeting does video meetings in ultra-HD
Just because meetings are boring doesn't mean they have to be low-res as well. Cisco's new TelePresence Meeting technology brings utter pixel overkill to the videoconferencing game with the new TelePresence 3000, which sports three 1080p flat panels on each end for use by up to 12 suits at a time. There's also a "low-end" TelePresence 1000 version, which just uses a single 1080p set on each end. The TelePresence 3000 setup includes special tables, microphone-speakers, cameras and lighting, but it'll cost you a cool $299k when it's released this December. Apparently that's a real bargain compared to HP's "Halo" setup, which is closing in on half a mil and requires $18k a month for service (Sony has 'em both beat with their $42k IPELA system), but it's still abundantly clear that TelePresence won't be making it into all but the ritziest board rooms. Luckily, that TP 1000 goes for a mere $79k, and neither system requires a monthly service fee -- though the 10 gigabit per second minimum bandwidth required is probably going to cost you $3-5k monthly per connected room. Still, all of this TelePresence action from Cisco is a sign of things to come, since the networking behemoth is slowly moving into the media and consumer spaces. They've got their sights set on consumer set-top boxes, so grandma can get her TelePresence on, and expect the videoconferencing industry to generate $1 billion in annual revenue before 2011. We're a bit skeptical, but with prices like these, at least they won't need to ship many widgets to hit that target.[Thanks, J]
Cisco patents the "Triple Play"
If you haven't heard of a Triple Play yet -- you know, where some service provider tries to shove TV, internet and phone service onto one pretty little contract for supposed cost savings and convenience to you -- then we applaud you for your apparent skill at avoiding the incessant advertising of such services from the major media companies. Unfortunately, it seems the US Patent Office possesses just such a skill, since they've granted a patent to Cisco Technology for the concept of "providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service." Now, Cisco did apply for this patent way back in 2000, before the idea had quite gotten so pervasive, but we're still a bit miffed that something this common-sensical can be patented at all. No word yet on what Cisco plans to do with the patent, but there are a whole lot of "infringing" services out there that they could potentially go after if the mood strikes. Luckily, Cisco has some pretty neat ideas of their own for a Triple Play network offering listed in the patent, so we'll remain cautiously optimistic -- safe underground, of course, in our tin-foil shielded bunker.[Via Slashdot]
Microsoft partners with major players on IPTV Edition-powered SoC STBs
With Zune and Vista hogging all the headlines these days, you may have forgotten that Microsoft is also hard at work pushing its IPTV Edition software platform into living rooms around the world, so the software giant decided to take the Broadband World Forum Europe in Paris as occasion to remind us just how committed it is to TV over the internet. The major announcement to come out of the conference was the immediate availability of system-on-a-chip set-top boxes powered by Redmond from several of the major STB hardware manufacturers, including Cisco, Motorola, Philips, and Tatung. All of these boxes will provide the end-user with HD and DVR support and on-demand viewing as well as more advanced capabilities like multiroom streaming and home media networking. Most of the new offerings -- such as Tatung's STB2000 series, Philips' BT-bound hybrid IPTV-DTT STB, and Cisco's unnamed models -- use an SoC based on Sigma Designs' 8634 chipset, with Cisco also hitting up STMicroelectronics for its silicon. Moto, meanwhile, announced that AT&T would be be the first customer to take delivery on its new devices, which -- as we already knew -- will be heading into the homes of the few, the proud, the U-verse subscribers. So congrats, Microsoft, on another product category successfully infused with your special brand of software, but now that you've become a major player in this realm, remember to watch your back -- FairUse4IPTV could be right around the corner.
Silicon Valley to become one ginormous WiFi hotspot
Silicon Valley can't be shown up by, say, Singapore, now can it? That's why the Wireless Silicon Valley Task Force has selected the Silicon Valley Metro Connect, a tech consortium that includes IBM and Cisco to build a giant WiFi network for the region. When built, this massive WiFi hotspot will span 1500 square miles (nearly 3900 sq. km), from the city of South San Francisco to Santa Cruz, a distance of over 60 linear miles (96 km). The plan, for now is to have free access for local residents via advertising, but higher bandwidth applications like VoIP or streaming video would cost extra, reports The Associated Press. No word on how GoogleFi fits into all of this, given that Mountain View is part of this territory. Perhaps Google will use its other stronghold in San Francisco to make a power play for the rest of the Peninsula -- creating one giant battleground of free wireless internet access. Still, WiFi for the SiVi is superfly.
Plantronic's Voyager 510-USB Bluetooth headset: a first for enterprise VoIP softphones
Yeah, we know life can be unfair. At home you're setup with a cordless phone and wireless laptop allowing you to roam about in full untethered data communication glory. Then you return to work only to be tethered to the cube, and more specifically, the corporate phone. Well, Plantronics may have a solution if your local IT drones are VoIP enlightened. See, Plantronics just announced their new Voyager 510-USB which they claim is the first system to bring Bluetooth connectivity to enterprise class VoIP softphones (read: not that clunky VoIP handset on your desk). As the name indicates, the 510-USB slug-on-ear headset also features a USB little-buddy for slottin' up to your laptop. What's unique here is the PerSonoCall software which allows the kit to integrate with Avaya, Cisco, Nortel and yes, Skype among other softphone software, to offer call notification and remote call answering/ending via the headset whether you're scooting about the airport, office, or home on your lappie. The headset will switch "seamlessly" between your VoIP softphone and cellphone and should give you about 100 hours standby or 6 hours talktime within the usual 10-meter radius of your PC. Not bad, eh? Now get on the horn with IT and pester 'em for a softphone solution until those pansies cave.
Cisco and TiVo sittin' in a tree?
It's just speculatory rumors at the moment, but according to some of CNET's sources, the "potential for an interesting partnership" between Cisco and TiVo does exist. That's not really a stretch when you put a few pieces of the puzzle together. Cisco knows that its core competency of networking is only a means to many ends: HDTV could easily be one of those ends. Factor in that Cicso bought one of the largest cable set-top box manufacturers when it snapped up Scientific-Atlanta last year as well as Linksys, who has a small scattering of networked entertainment products, and you can see the digital handwriting on the wall.TiVo would garner Cisco another well-known brand and hopefully accelerate the continued usage of networked digital devices in the home entertainment room. You be the "analyst:": would a TiVo purchase by Cisco be good for one of them, both of them or neither of them?Read (via Thomas Hawk)
