TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL |  Cisco's iPhone
Was Cisco's iPhone a working product or something they were working w/ Apple at a prior time? |
|
taar
join:2000-11-21 | Its all about who was first.........
Bottom line, Cisco had the name first for a communications device. Apple needs to PLAY nice or PAY UP! |
|
Warez_Zealot
Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan
| How can they trade mark such a word?
That's essentially like trademarking internet phone... or phone with an i in front of it.. Isn't there some law against trademarking common words?
Cisco should have this trademark reviewed than rejected...
--
The meek shall inherit the earth but don't forget the poor are the ones who inherit the debt. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Apple's defense: VoIP is different?
Thanks for the research, Karl. You can also look at the text of Cisco's trademark - it's for a networking device, no mention of cellular
some more public information:
What Cisco/Linksys said yesterday on lawsuit: "Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand,"
Apple's response on CNBC (paraphrasing): Their trademark is for IPhone as in IP(internet protocol)hone and they sell a VoIP phone. However, our product is a cell phone and is called "i"Phone to be similar to our "i"Pod.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | Redmond Lawyers, start your copiers!
This one will generate a mountain of paperwork.
Or PDF's..... |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Or .doc documents...
Or proprietary .MSxml files...
(Should be called the "iCost+" as it ain't cheap...) |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Ther are so many ways to look at this
I think the comment "Lawyers start your copiers" sums it up. Technically Cisco looks more correct, historically Apple looks more correct. Could be 'fun' unless cooler, wiser heads prevail (right, and I have a bridge for sale, made of gold, in San Francisco)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by RayW  :...(right, and I have a bridge for sale, made of gold, in San Francisco).. OOOH OOOH I'LL TAKE ONE, I'LL TAKE ONE!!
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
cwilliams194
join:2006-12-04
Hamilton, ON
| play nice
Apple is just quoting semantics here, "our product isn't the IPhone it's the iPhone" what's the freakin difference.
it's still the word phone with an "i" infront of if, Apple in lower case Cisco in upper case.
Oh btw I'm starting a new computer company I'm calling it aPPle, but it's ok because the the 2 upper case "p"s stand for "Personal PC" ya I don't think that would go over so well.
--
You want a piece of me? Well come and get it!-Prof. Farnsworth |
|
AppleSucksAgain
@comcast.net
 from:
BillRoland
| You can bet Apple will pay for this blunder
As if to demonstrate how clueless Apple is... Not only have they raised the price they will now pay for the rights to use the expression "iPhone", - if they even get too, they also forgot to get the phone approved by the FCC so they can't sell it in the U.S. anyway. In the PC industry this is known as the blind leading the clueless. Apple fanboys will still be lined up to pay thru their arse for such foolishness, but Cisco will make Apple pay heavily for their indiscretions. |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to Warez_Zealot
Re: How can they trade mark such a word?
said by Warez_Zealot :That's essentially like trademarking internet phone... or phone with an i in front of it.. Isn't there some law against trademarking common words? How the heck is iPhone a common word? They're not trying to trademark the letter "i" nor the word "phone." "iPhone" IS a trademark, however. It's kinda like how the word "American" can't be trademarked, and the word "Idol" can't be trademarked, but you can sure believe the words "American Idol" are trademarked.
Linksys had a working telephone that has been officially launched into the market, called an iPhone, and had the trademark for the name since 2000. There is no reason why Apple should have any rights to the trademark unless Cisco grants it to them. If Apple hasn't been granted the rights to iPhone, then they can't start marketing it as such, which is what they did here. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to AppleSucksAgain
Re: You can bet Apple will pay for this blunder
said by AppleSucksAgain :
As if to demonstrate how clueless Apple is... ... they marketed the iPod line and iTunes. Man, wish I could have a chunk of THAT cluelessness 
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| And Cisco is right
"It wasn't about the money" I believe that. At this point Cisco is probably mad Apple went ahead gung-ho calling it the iPhone when they were still negotiating, that usually has a tendency to piss the other side off, but it shouldn't be a surprise, its just Apple's true character coming out to play. I see a number of reasons the iPhone could potentially be a non-starter, this is just another one, as Cisco could slow this down for a while and I think Apple is too pig-headed to admit they stole somebody else's trademark and change the name. Silly, but you would expect nothing less from Steve Jobs.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to SD6
Re: Apple's defense: VoIP is different?
Isn't this like Ford making a new sport/utility truck and calling it a Camaro? |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| reply to Titus Pullo
Re: You can bet Apple will pay for this blunder
said by Titus Pullo :they marketed the iPod line and iTunes. Man, wish I could have a chunk of THAT cluelessness They're entering an arena where there are many entrenched players that have been building phones for a long time. Their execution on this needed to be perfect if they are to have any chance of breaking into the market, and so far, they've failed to file with the FCC and they're now in a trademark dispute with Cisco, which means they won't be able to sell it until they've settled that or change the name of it. Two blunders are not a very good way to start out.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to cwilliams194
Re: play nice
said by cwilliams194 :Apple is just quoting semantics here, "our product isn't the IPhone it's the iPhone" what's the freakin difference. it's still the word phone with an "i" infront of if, Apple in lower case Cisco in upper case. Oh btw I'm starting a new computer company I'm calling it aPPle, but it's ok because the the 2 upper case "p"s stand for "Personal PC" ya I don't think that would go over so well. I hope I wasn't misleading with my post. The capitalization isn't the legal issue that Apple raised. The issue that they raised is that Cisco has an IP networking device, while Apple has a cellphone; and that Apple used the i**** naming theme before Cisco registered iPhone. |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Don't understand
I don't understand why in some cases not all that a company needs to explain why they are suing. Is Cisco expecting people to feel sorry for them and get public approval? I don't think a company needs public approval, they can sue whenever they feel like.
Cisco's lawyers say it's not about money but it is. A licensing agreement will be signed and Apple will pay compensation to Cisco. Apple hasn't paid the money so that's what the stink is all about. |
|
cwilliams194
join:2006-12-04
Hamilton, ON
| reply to SD6
Re: play nice
yes I see now after going to the Cisco site that they are both "iPhone", but still they ARE both phones, yes one is an IP phone and one is a cellphone, but they are both telecomunications devices.
--
You want a piece of me? Well come and get it!-Prof. Farnsworth |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to cwilliams194
Or, maybe it's the EYEPhone |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to viperpa33s
Re: Don't understand
said by viperpa33s :Cisco's lawyers say it's not about money but it is. A licensing agreement will be signed and Apple will pay compensation to Cisco. Apple hasn't paid the money so that's what the stink is all about. It may indeed not be (directly) about money in terms of licensing royalties or cash payment. Cisco is really, really, into selling their own products, and may truly want the name. |
|
