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?

said by brandon :

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.

said by kamm :

I'm curious about your take on the trademarked name of "windows"...

said by cdru :

Even then, it's not 100% clear on the trademarking of Windows. Back a few years a company called Linspire came out with a Linux distribution that ran some Windows applications called Lindows. Microsoft sued because the trademarks were sufficiently similar that it could cause confusion to consumers. While the case was ultimately settled out of court before all appeals were exhausted, it was quite a ways down the path of Microsoft losing the case because Microsoft had used the term "windows" in describing the GUI prior to Windows (the product) from ever being released. Apple and Xerox had also implemented the idea and used the terminology prior to Microsoft telemarketing it as well. It would be similar to me trademarking the name Phones and then suing any company that used the derivative of that.

Trademarks are used to product product name recognition in the market place. Multiple companies can own the same or similar trademark as long as the use of the trademark is in different areas and would not be commonly confused by the lay person. My company has a trade mark of "Do it Best" (the hardware store). Nike has the trade mark "Just Do It". They are fairly similar, but it's not likely someone would confuse a hardware store and a sports clothing company.

said by Maxo :

Cisco had secured the
patent trademark registration for the name 10 years ago.
Source

said by Maxo :

Cisco had secured the patent for the name 10 years ago.
Source

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?

Cisco should have this trademark reviewed than rejected...

said by cableties :

(Should be called the "iCost+" as it ain't cheap...)

said by cableties :

(Should be called the "iCost+" as it ain't cheap...)

said by cableties :

Um, what does a car analogy have to do with the high cost of legal fees? (as in it's going to cost Apple now for it's premature dance)

said by lesopp :

Isn't this like Ford making a new sport/utility truck and calling it a Camaro?

said by SD6 :

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.

said by RayW :

...(right, and I have a bridge for sale, made of gold, in San Francisco)..

said by BillRoland :

...Silly, but you would expect nothing less from Steve Jobs.

said by gateguy :

Interesting thought. Do you mean to imply that Steve Jobs has stolen so much, that it is expected behavior for him?

Links to back up your point of view, please.

said by dcaponegro5 :

The lawyers claim the agreement wasn't hung up on money or royalties, but a desire for "an open approach" and platform interoperability.

One has to wonder why cisco wants platform interoperability. They make network gear that transports open protocols. I don't see where there is a problem. I think there is more to this than we are hearing. I am sure it will all shake out over time.

said by inteller :

They can just hardwire their routers to send all traffic with Apple MAC addresses to various porn sites.