Print 75 comment(s) - last by Hare.. on Jan 12 at 4:51 PM

It may not be as sexy, but this iPhone was here first
Apple iPhone = iPWNED?

Everyone knew this move had to be coming. While Apple may have popularized the little "i" with products like iMac, iBook, iPod, iTunes and iLife, the iPhone name has already been taken. Cisco has owned the trademark for iPhone since 2000 when it was purchased from Infogear. Infogear originally filed for the trademark in 1996 (well before Apple jumped into the "i" business). Cisco just recently ushered the name into service with a new line of VoIP devices marketed by Cisco's Linksys division.

Although Apple and Cisco have been in talks for quite some time over the iPhone name, no agreement was ever reached. Nevertheless, Apple boldly decided yesterday to announce the iPhone at MacWorld. Cisco isn't too happy about the move and has filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel for Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission."

Cisco isn't going down without a fight on this one and it intends to fully protect its line of iPhone products. "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," said Chandler.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How can this happen?
By SomeYoungMan on 1/10/2007 8:06:06 PM , Rating: 2

I guess basic trademark research is too hard, or Apple conveniently ignored it. They lose either way. Either they lose momentum for having to change their phone name or they open the door for other companies to start making iPods.

RE: How can this happen?
By Some1ne on 1/10/2007 8:14:54 PM , Rating: 3
Either they lose momentum for having to change their phone name or they open the door for other companies to start making iPods.

The first might happen, but that second bit doesn't make sense. If Cisco decides to be nice, and allow Apple to use iPhone, it doesn't mean that Apple has to play nice with the trademarks that it owns, like iPod. Conversely, if Apple were to decided to let other people use its trademarks, it doesn't mean that Apple then recieves free reign to steal other people's trademarks as a result.

But regardless, go Cisco! Anything to take Apple down a peg is a positive thing...damn smug bastards think that just because they're good at putting stylish wrappers around things they can get away with charging $1100 for an upgrade from 1 GB to 4 GB of RAM, or $400 to add in a 500 GB disk. About time someone puts them in their place.

RE: How can this happen?
By MrDiSante on 1/10/2007 9:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed - or for that matter charging $500 + 2 year contract for a phone with 4GB of storage.

RE: How can this happen?
By sdsdv10 on 1/11/2007 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 3
The Treo 700w is $400 + 2 year contact at Verizon and it only has 128 MB of memory

RE: How can this happen?
By robp5p on 1/10/2007 9:22:46 PM , Rating: 1
Kind of funny, but Cisco's list price for a 1GB memory upgrade is $4800 for a Catalyst 6500.

It might seem that Cisco is wasting their time to defend a product like the linksys iPhone, but their vision for the future of communications is much bigger than putting MP3's on your cell phone with a big screen. They have long been the largest network infrastructure (routing, switching, wireless, security, etc) providor in the world, but They have quietly become the largest providor of enterprise telephony equipment (their VoIP solutions are outselling every other competitor combined), have acquired Scientific Atlanta (which means your set top box will say Cisco soon enough), and are changing the way cable/telecom companies are deploying the backbone of their triple-play (and 'quad-play', where a device like iPhone could become important in the future) IP networks. CEO John Chambers' vision for the future of communications is definitely something to look into, and the 'iPhone' could grow to be MUCH more interesting than Apple could ever dream of.

RE: How can this happen?
By NoSoftwarePatents on 1/10/2007 11:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
HOWEVER, you may not have to necessarily pay Cisco's price for that. Several vendors, Kingston, and Viking, make Cisco-compatible memory that works fine in many switches and routers.

This applies to Flash memory as well.

RE: How can this happen?
By glynor on 1/11/2007 1:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
And you have to buy RAM from Apple?

Last I checked, the RAM for a Mac Pro is run-of-the-mill EEC DDR2 FB-DIMMs, same as you'd use in any dual-xeon workstation. And last I checked, Crucial charges $1269.00 for 4GB of it, so Apple's $1099 isn't too far off the mark.

RE: How can this happen?
By Oregonian2 on 1/11/2007 3:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
I've noticed Crucial to be one of the spendier places to buy memory in the last few years (prior to which they were only slightly-spendy). So I'm not sure that's a good comparison point.

RE: How can this happen?
By glennpratt on 1/11/2007 9:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
That applies to apple as well, so it's a moot point.

RE: How can this happen?
By ToeCutter on 1/11/2007 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
But regardless, go Cisco! Anything to take Apple down a peg is a positive thing...damn smug bastards think that just because they're good at putting stylish wrappers around things they can get away with charging $1100 for an upgrade from 1 GB to 4 GB of RAM, or $400 to add in a 500 GB disk. About time someone puts them in their place.

You've obviously never had to pay for a memory upgrade for a Cisco router.

RE: How can this happen?
By RamarC on 1/10/2007 8:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
it's not unusual for multiple trademarks to be issued for the same word.
if you search for iphone at you'll find multiple listings.

as for apple, they either think their product category is distinct from cisco or the iphone moniker is more/less defunct. or maybe cisco wanted crazy cash for the name and apple's willing to paint cisco as the bad guy by bringing the dispute public.

still, i really WANT an iphone and i've NEVER wanted anything with the apple logo on it before. the iphone is the slickest and (seems to be) the slickest thing i've seen in quite a while.

RE: How can this happen?
By SomeYoungMan on 1/10/2007 8:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but it's usually a good idea to secure the trademark, multiple issued or not, before you announce the product :) Guess the rush to unveil it at MacWorld was worth the risk.

RE: How can this happen?
By Anosh on 1/10/2007 8:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
They could have revealed the phone but not the name.

RE: How can this happen?
By sdsdv10 on 1/11/2007 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Or they could simply change the name

(2006) iTV ---> (2007) Apple TV

(January 2007) iPhone ---> (June 2007) ?!?!?

RE: How can this happen?
By marvdmartian on 1/11/2007 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 3
I'm no Apple fanboy, not by a long shot......but how hard would it have been for them to name it something clever, like the "iTalk"??? Instead, let's use a name that someone else already has registered as a trademark. DOH!!

I'm going to go out and register a toilet named the iPooP, so that years from now, when Apple designs bathroom products with mp3 players integrated in them, they'll have to pay me some MAJOR cash for the name!! ;)

RE: How can this happen?
By glennpratt on 1/11/2007 9:09:30 AM , Rating: 4
So you've never wanted an Apple product before, but you want a phone with no 3G, no QWERTY, no wireless email/calender/contact sync (eg Exchange ActiveSync) and you want to pay $599 for it?

Sounds like Apples been right up your alley all along.

RE: How can this happen?
By RamarC on 1/11/2007 10:51:24 AM , Rating: 1
you must not have seen the demo at the qwerty keyboard is virtual... you type on the screen. it supports cingular's edge (an alternative to 3g). if you want to go faster, it has built-in wi-fi. and there'll definitely be sync to outlook later since it's built on osX and a quick port of an existing app is all that's needed.

the built-in web browser is leaps and bounds better than any that i've seen in a small phone (fat smartphones not included). the sms ui tracks the conversation. and the widgets should sprout a 3rd party development community.

the iphone has unique and innovative features that make it more usable and more flexible than any other phone/handheld. as for paying $599, expect that to be discounted to $199 with 2 year agreement. geez, my samsung a900 had a list price of $350 but I paid only $80 for it a year ago.

RE: How can this happen?
By Pops on 1/11/2007 12:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you had seen the demo you would know the $599 price is WITH the 2 year contract. It would cost more without.

I think its a really slick phone, and I too have never wanted a single Apple product. I was really impressed with the demo until they showed the side by side of the contacts/calendars etc with the other phones. They looked exactly the same.

So I think the only place it really excels over other phones is the touch screen and large storage.

RE: How can this happen?
By Johnmcl7 on 1/11/2007 3:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't count a virtual keyboard as having a qwerty keyboard as they are no substitute for a proper qwerty thumbboard. In this area I find HTC to be excellent with their vertical slide out keyboard which gives good spacing between the keys without having to increase the size of the phone dramatically.

As for web browsing, I assume you've not seen Opera? They offer versions for most platforms now including smaller handsets such as the K800i which work extremely well. Also, on the larger side the Iphone is behind other devices of this type due to its lower screen resolution - it should offer at least 640x480 if not more.


RE: How can this happen?
By creathir on 1/11/2007 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
The key difference, is Cisco has a REGISTERED trademark on the name. That is where Apple is going to suffer.
- Creathir

RE: How can this happen?
By dice1111 on 1/11/2007 10:11:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think they know quite well what they are doing. Get the Apple iPhone name out there to create the hype and let customers know of it's existance/place in the market regarless of trademarks and sort out the mess after, like taking a hit with a lawsuit. Brand awarness can be priceless compared to the price of lawsuit. It's marketing. The lawsuit itself even adds more awarness of the product due to news coverage.

My opinion and complete speculation (no factual basis for this). But it makes sence.

RE: How can this happen?
By patentman on 1/11/2007 9:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
"I think they know quite well what they are doing. Get the Apple iPhone name out there to create the hype and let customers know of it's existance/place in the market regarless of trademarks and sort out the mess after, like taking a hit with a lawsuit. Brand awarness can be priceless compared to the price of lawsuit. It's marketing. The lawsuit itself even adds more awarness of the product due to news coverage."

This is exactly why trademark law exists and has very very stiff penalties. Indeed, the whole point of trademark law is to prevent others from misappropriating the goodwill associated with another's brand name.

RE: How can this happen?
By rushfan2006 on 1/11/2007 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 1

I can't help but find this hilarious....

Just yesterday I read the report that made it sound like Cisco was expecting an agreement to be signed by Apple and that all would be fine.....

OOOOpsss....guess Apple execs got to toasted celebrating their product launch and missed the meeting to sign the agreement....LOL....


RE: How can this happen?
By fic2 on 1/11/2007 1:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
On CNBC they quoted one of the Cisco exec's blogs (sorry couldn't find it) that said the negotiations fell apart not over money, but over Apple's refusal in future interoperability. This totally sounds like apple.

RE: How can this happen?
By Oregonian2 on 1/11/2007 3:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
This wouldn't be so 'big" of an issue if if weren't for Apple themselves being real a**-h**** about suing what always seems like an infinite number of comparatively tiny companies (I know of one that was a single-person enterprise) for using anything even vaguely like their iPod name even though the products weren't anything like anything Apple makes. Still don't know why they haven't sued PODi_atrists or tr_iPOD makers, it'd fit into their pattern.

Now when Apple, the 400-pound gorilla wants their own way with iPhone, having the opponent be an 800-pound gorilla seems only just. I certainly hope justice is served them -- but in lawsuits, being right gives you only a 50-50 chance of winning. So I've my fingers crossed as well.

I like Apple's products (bought two 60Gb iPods last year), but their ethics are non-existent, IMO.

iPhone > ApplePhone
By Anosh on 1/10/2007 8:08:41 PM , Rating: 3
Why not just use ApplePhone since they've already used AppleTV?

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By Anosh on 1/10/2007 8:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
oh wait.. now I get it.. cause it wouldn't fit on the phone!! =)

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By SomeYoungMan on 1/10/2007 8:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
What about:

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By apollo7 on 1/10/2007 11:55:03 PM , Rating: 3
or iMobile ?

Apple was just being ignorant...

Theres so many ways they could go about this without using that name. Look at the iPod for example. They didn't call it iMusic did they? or iPlayer for that matter.

They could have taken a spin on the name and called it iVibe or iBuzz, something with a hip twist to it. Because honestly the name iPhone has NO creativity at all.

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By kkevin6154 on 1/11/2007 8:40:12 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with the last one. Apple should just stick it to Cisco even more and change the name to iFone!

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By zeroslugfm on 1/10/2007 8:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
would be interesting to see if they could get away with "Apple iPhone".

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By Anosh on 1/10/2007 8:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Apple recently loose a case where some Asian company made a shuffle look alike but named it something else?

Perhaps Apple could argue that the two products look very different and would not be confused for the other? Then again there is still the ownership of the name.

RE: iPhone > ApplePhone
By akugami on 1/10/2007 10:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
That case was retarded since it was deemed a different product and not a knockoff simply due to some features like FM radio that is not included in the Shuffle, even though the darn thing looked exactly like a Shuffle. Now said company has filed a counter suite against Apple.

In this case, Apple knowingly infringed on someone else's trademark. Apple was already in discussions with Cisco to use the iPhone moniker and it is only a matter of time before it is allowed to use it. The question is how much money Apple will have to fork over. Cisco filing a suite is simply another spur to get the advantage in these talks. I'm 99% certain that it will not go to trial.

Correction Required To Last Paragraph...
By xphile on 1/10/2007 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Cisco isn't going down with a fight on this one..."

I'm thinking that would be "without a fight...", or "is going down with a fight" maybe, but to not go down with a fight implies they intend to whimper in the corner and sulk while they hope someone calls them on their forgotten iphone to say sorry...

RE: Correction Required To Last Paragraph...
By robp5p on 1/10/2007 10:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
one thing to realize here is that Apple is actually the little guy in this fight.

cisco's market capitalization is almost 2x apple's...

RE: Correction Required To Last Paragraph...
By rawlic on 1/10/2007 10:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
Market capitalization be damned. There is no "little guy" in this fight. Both companies are big enough to hire enough lawyers to keep the court busy for years if they want, and both have enough interest in their products to do that if they can't reach an agreement.

By ThisSpaceForRent on 1/11/2007 8:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
If I was a lawyer for Cisco, I would just show up in court and ask for a summary judgement against Apple. The ownership of the trademark since 2000, a product under the name of said trademark, and the fact that Apple was in talks to use said trademark, are all pretty damning. The issue with Apple in talks to use it means they knew that Cisco owned, and used, the trademark.

By xphile on 1/11/2007 3:14:23 AM , Rating: 5
I was actually just correcting the original article by Brandon and pointing out what he was inadvertantly implying.

Quite clearly Cisco is in the right on this without any doubt and to think they would shrug and let this one go is ridiculous and I'm fully aware that Cisco is a old school company, big in size, finances and more than big in knowledge of how these issues play out.

They know Apple has gotten to where it is almost based on one product alone. To let them have a possible second one using their own trademark for free is ludicrous. But it was clear from Cisco's statements on the day Jobs announced the product that they thought it meant Apple had accepted what was obviously a long and protracted negotiation by announcing the name.

Within 24 hours they are filing suit, showing Apple have obviously NOT formally accepted whatever was on the table. That to my mind is plain bad manners on Apples part which I find strange in one sense, but even stranger is it is stupid business sense. Practically any reasonable offer to use the name "iPhone" would have been well worth Apple paying for. The depth of penetration in the market that it creates longterm following the iPod just cant be underestimated given what the product aims to do.

To think "we will steal the name for now and make a buzz, and worry if we lose it later" is super un-Apple dumb. You go to court and maybe loose the right to use it, and just hope the previous buzz is remembered when it is finally sold as the Apple Phone or whatever, that just doesnt make sense when you already know the name alone once announced is a third of your product marketing base all by itself.

If it goes to court Cisco will win. Cisco will deserve to win. If Apple lose the right to use the name immediately, it will hurt them. If they lose it later by a year or more it will only hurt them more the longer the brandname has been established. I cant see that Jobs and Apple Inc are that stupid they dont know this, so I suspect there is more to this story than meets they eye today.

By ascian5 on 1/10/2007 8:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
I recall reading yesterday (1/09) that Cisco announced they were in negotiations with Apple over trademark usage and expected a satisfactory resolution by the end of the day. Ha! Guess not!

RE: hm
By SomeYoungMan on 1/10/2007 9:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I just did a search and read that statement too. So, negotiations have been going on between Apple and Cisco and Cisco just assumed that Apple had no case and expected them to accept whatever terms they came up with.

Seems like Apple has long ago expected to use the iPhone name (since at least 2002 when they registered and they do own the rights to it in some international markets.

The quote from this article is misleading:

It appears that no one passed this bit of information onto Apple since it decided to announce its own iPhone yesterday at MacWorld. Cisco isn't too happy about the move and has filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc.

Apple knew about the issue all along and they are going all-in now against Cisco.

RE: hm
By willow01 on 1/10/2007 9:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I recall the same thing. I also agree with another poster when the Linksys iPhone was annonced that no-one associated pod with a music player so naming it something different/creative would be just as appropriate, iChat was an example.

RE: hm
By Pandamonium on 1/11/2007 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Linksys is a Cisco company. Cisco's rights to the trademark were therefore not compromised when Linksys announced an iPhone.

don't get what the big deal is with the iphone
By bob4432 on 1/10/2007 11:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
seriously, my pda/phone does the same things with the exceptions of playing itunes audio, which the drms can be circumvented anyway and converted to mp3 which plays fine on wmp10. not to impressed with it...what am i missing? i would take a cingular 8525 anyday over the iphone. plus iguidance works excellent :)

By Shark Tek on 1/11/2007 8:35:17 AM , Rating: 3
I was thinking the same thing isn't a productive product like a PDA or a real smartphone that lets you install other apps, open/create files like PDF, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, etc. This product is aimed to those boys that like to have something cool in their pocket. The touchscreen looks that is going to be a pain in the @$$ when is scratched. But if Apple modify it in such way that I can do what I say above, count me on buying one.

I still prefer the Black Jack, BlackBerry or the 8525.

Public Perception...
By Coconutsport on 1/11/2007 8:17:50 AM , Rating: 1
Public perception is just as important here than being first in line. Just like if I bought the url. People logging onto that site would think that I am a burger flipping company. The spirit of copyright law is not to reward people that are first at preempting another company's necessity (i.e. the name iPhone) but to protect the intellectual property of the inventor. no one would mistake Cisco's iPhone for Apple's iPhone. But if you mentioned the word iPhone to the general public they would immediately associate it with Apple. As they would if you stuck a lower case letter "i" in front of a noun. Cisco appears to have tried to capitalize on the "i" name with the full knowledge that Apple was going to come out with one. Jobs has been 2-1/2 years into working on this revolutionary product, and you're trying to tell me that Cisco's i-branded phone is the true iPhone bacause it was first to call it that?

RE: Public Perception...
By MrPickins on 1/11/2007 10:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yes.They registered the trademark 1st.

First come first served.

RE: Public Perception...
By darith27 on 1/11/2007 11:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, Apple knew Cisco had it registered, but they went in anyway with a pre-set budget & plan ready to take the pain. Apple realizes that in order to make a gain they have to take a loss, and it will be worth it to compete in this market.

Better Name
By room200 on 1/11/2007 9:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
Iphone is a terrible name anyway. They should have called it The Italk.

RE: Better Name
By TimberJon on 1/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Better Name
By Master Kenobi on 1/11/2007 1:46:11 PM , Rating: 3
Let me remind you that 85% of the Internet runs on CISCO equipment. They are second to NONE in the Global market for high end routing and networking solutions. Also in enterprise VoIP Solutions they are also second to NONE.

I would argue that Apple makes squat compared to Cisco.

By PandaBear on 1/10/2007 9:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
What I remember reading is that Cisco said they will reach an agreement with Apple, and now they are suing? Sounds like either Cisco asked for too much or Apple is not willing to pay.

Just change the name from iPhone to something else, like iCell or something.

By Fenixgoon on 1/10/2007 10:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Cisco was in negotiations and was expecting apple to sign, since they were about to release the iphone, IIRC (read it on DT, but i could be mistaken). but, according to said article (from whomever), apple had not officially signed any agreement(s) with cisco regarding the nature of the iphone.

By alexsch8 on 1/10/2007 9:44:24 PM , Rating: 1
I am sure that Apple was well aware of the fact that Cisco owned the trademark and Cisco was quite sure that something was in the works over in the Apple camp with the iPhone name. People have been refering to the Apple phone as the iPhone for quite a while now and I think it was a suprise to see Linksys/Cisco come up with their own product using the name. Frankly I think it was an attempt by Cisco to leverage Apple into some kind of agreement. Everyone wants to get a piece of the pie.

But I don't know how Apple can decide to use iPhone anyway but refuse to let others use the iPod term.

By Soviet Robot on 1/11/2007 11:21:06 AM , Rating: 3
They definately released it to have as legal leverage. All of these applekids are saying they just tried to capitalize on the name and hype, no sir.

Timing maybe?
By Ajax9000 on 1/10/2007 11:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Apple soft-launched the Apple iPhone now, but said it won't be making it available until mid-year so as to allow 5 months of legal wrangling???

RE: Timing maybe?
By Anosh on 1/11/2007 5:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
That would kind of make sense. But in the case talks break down they'd have to rename and rebadge the product.

People are already used to calling it iPhone and a rename would be very confusing especially for those who aren't technically oriented and just want a cool apple phone.

By grimdeath on 1/11/2007 12:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
why not just call it "apple iphone" the band for the rockstar tv show got in trouble this last season because the band name had already been used they were going to use so they called it "rockstar ...."

easy enough to miss some heat on that

RE: hmmm
By xphile on 1/11/2007 3:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
For the same reason if you sit back now and think of the brilliance of the name "Apple Ipod" having to be used in every add and in every reference by anybody to the product, you know damn well it just doesnt work, and never would have worked, the same.

Miss the heat yes, miss the point totally also though.

Well it is surprising
By cochy on 1/10/2007 8:03:54 PM , Rating: 3
Since everyone already knew about the iPhone trademark, it's surprising that Apple couldn't have settled this issue long before hand. Since they were already in negotiations with Cisco for the past little while, it's obvious Cisco is demanding a lot of compensation for use of the trademark. Guess Apple wasn't too happy about this amount and now legal papers have been served. Apple will be forced to settled for a very large sum or come up with another name. Cisco really have them in a tight spot here.

By Zurtex on 1/10/2007 8:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Surely Apple are just going to say it's the "Apple iPhone" not the iPhone?

Just like "Windows Vista" isn't Vista

RE: Erm..
By Coconutsport on 1/11/2007 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 1
That's almost as stupid as Pella suing Microsoft for using the word Windows in their name.

Cisco rape
By goku on 1/11/2007 2:07:44 PM , Rating: 3
I hope cisco rapes apple because of this, so sick of apple's bullshit thinking they can do what ever the fuck they want. I don't want cisco to settle and I think they should just rape them in the court system as they do have a product with that name, not just a 'trademark' of nothing..

By Hydrofirex on 1/11/2007 1:29:31 AM , Rating: 2

come on.....
By bladerunner2376 on 1/11/2007 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
If anybody thinks that Jobs didn't see this coming, they are kidding themselves.

To me, it seems fairly obvious that they would have enough sense to know this was going to happen. I would bet that they already had multiple plans in place to handle this situation.

I doubt that such a foward thinking company such as Apple inc. would not see this coming. They probably had plans inplace a few years ago when they started the initial designs of the phone....

By Murst on 1/11/2007 1:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Its funny that so many of you think Cisco can just sue apple and get all kinds of money just because Apple announced that they're making an "iPhone" product.

The only thing Cisco can sue for right now is court fees and an order preventing Apple from using the name. There are no damages in this case, and there's nothing to penalize for.

If Cisco and Apple can't come to agreement, Apple will just rename the product. There's no monetary losses for them. Sure, people might be a bit confused if it doesn't come out under the iPhone name, but its not even out in the market yet. I'm sure if Apple renames their product from iPhone to something else, they'll have just as much coverage about the "renaming" as they did when they annouced the product. Some might even look at it as more exposure in the media.

Sour grapes and little else..
By ChipDude on 1/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By cochy on 1/10/2007 8:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
iFone won't work. If it sounds alike a company can sue over it. I think Google was involved in a similar law suit. I can't remember off the top of my hand but there was another website with a similar sounding name, something like Moogle and it went to court.

By Brainonska511 on 1/10/2007 8:40:40 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By Anosh on 1/10/2007 8:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
For a company that provides VoIP network equipment Cisco would be interested in providing hand held devices that can utilize the equipment.

Naming it iPhone would make it international and easy to remember.

Also perhaps it's just me.. but iFone doesn't look as good as iPhone.

RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By Natfly on 1/10/2007 9:41:37 PM , Rating: 5
Please.....Cisco trying to extort Apple? Cisco has had this trademark since before Apple even began to use the 'i' moniker. Apple was lucky to even have been able to have talks with Cisco, and somehow they blew it.

And its not like Cisco is simply sitting on the trademark trying to make a buck (unlike many of intellectual property suits), they actually have a product under the name.

Apple went ahead and announced their phone without having secured the iPhone name, which was a huge mistake. Apple may have been pressured to announce the phone during CES, instead of waiting until who-knows-when just to secure the name.

RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By Hare on 1/11/2007 6:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
Please.....Cisco trying to extort Apple? Cisco has had this trademark since before Apple even began to use the 'i' moniker.

Not true. Apple had iMacs etc in the nineties.

RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By Brandon Hill on 1/11/2007 6:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
The iPhone name was commissioned in '96 by another company. Cisco bought the trademark.

By Oregonian2 on 1/11/2007 3:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Or more precisely bought the company that owned the trademark. :-)

RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By Hare on 1/12/2007 4:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
True. However the previous poster claimed that "Cisco has had this trademark since before Apple even began to use the 'i' moniker."

I just thought I'd correct that.

RE: Sour grapes and little else..
By MustaineC on 1/11/2007 8:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
It really is you showing Apple is stuck high up your butt.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki
Related Articles
iPhone Officially Announced
December 18, 2006, 3:19 AM
Apple Announces New iPods
September 12, 2006, 1:25 PM

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki