RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | 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. |
|
|
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | 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 |
|
| reply to RayW
What?
Historically Cisco OWNS the trademark. Historically Cisco has used said trademark in conjunction with a Phone. Historically Apple did not use iPhone before it was trademarked by Cisco.
There is no technicalities. Cisco has a product called iPhone and has owned the trademark for almost 6 years or more. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Could be, they probably should have said iPod was too close back then. A lawyers pot o'gold
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| True but different industries so that claim would be invalid. |
|
