Apple iPhone oops?

[Lady Gravity]

you'd think they would have done trademark searches BEFORE they invested all their time/money into developing their new product...

http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/inve...mentid=2238956

"Cisco lawsuit against Apple over IPhone naming rights could get ugly

January 11, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - What's a name worth?

To find out, Cisco Systems Inc. and Apple Inc. may spend millions of dollars in a high-stakes legal battle - and the winner could walk away with the rights to the coveted name "IPhone."

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, Cisco asked a judge to forbid Apple from using the name "IPhone," a Cisco trademark since 2000. The case hinges in part on whether Apple's phone - a sleek, US$499 gizmo unveiled Tuesday to much fanfare - could confuse shoppers looking to buy Cisco's IPhones."

[Usul]

Apple figured that cuz theirs is a cell phone and Cisco's wasn't that they'll be OK. I think they are gonna get raped in court.

[Rat]

Big lawsuit lots of plublicity, apple pays off cisco and everyone makes big $$$

[.glib]

They were apparently in the last stages of negotiations when the release was made; at the point of 'sign these papers and send em back'. Now it seems since things got a little out of order, that cisco thinks they can squeeze a bit of extra cash out of it.

No big deal. Cisco is huge... but the driving force behind that iphone is far larger. Between cingular, google, yahoo and apple, there are a lot of industry heavyweights with a lot of cash and influence who have a vested interest in this thing moving forward.

It's news now, give it a month and it'll all be settled.

[Couch_Surfer]

Originally Posted by .glib

They were apparently in the last stages of negotiations when the release was made; at the point of 'sign these papers and send em back'. Now it seems since things got a little out of order, that cisco thinks they can squeeze a bit of extra cash out of it.

That may not necessarily it - my understanding of patent law (not sure if copyright law works the same way) is that if Cisco did not protect their IP upon discovery of infringement, they open the door for the IP to be considered public domain.

But I'm not a lawyer - would be interested whether that is correct or not.

[Couch_Surfer]

General Counsel for CISCO comments on the suit

"At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street."

[Mr. Charles]

iPhone is a dumb name anyway. They didn't call the iPods, iPlayers or something... why call it an iPhone? SHould called it the iCapsule or iCap or anything else that is a bit less obvious.

[sanrensho]

Quoted from an LA Times article:

The Cupertino, Calif., company built a consumer electronics empire on the lowercase "i" — iMac, iPod, iTunes — and has long coveted San Jose-based Cisco's iPhone. Nevertheless, Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris called Cisco's suit "silly."

Cisco came to own the name iPhone when it bought InfoGear Technology Corp., which had owned the trademark since 1996. Linksys, a Cisco unit, began shipping iPhone products a year ago. It recently launched a phone that uses voice-over-Internet technology.

For the last several years, Apple has been asking Cisco about the iPhone name, Cisco said.

Anderson said the networking company was not looking for money and recognized the hard work of the Apple team. But Cisco is looking for a "collaboration and joint development with Apple" to ensure that Apple's phone works with Cisco's networking gear.

The talks stalled and Cisco executives were surprised when Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs christened the phone in a presentation Tuesday.

"Several other companies are using the name iPhone for voice-over-the-Internet products," Kerris said. "We're the first to use iPhone for a cellphone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."

Silicon Valley typically is not a hotbed of trademark violation suits, mostly because the products aren't around long enough to build up brand recognition, said Thomas Schneck, a San Jose-based intellectual property lawyer.

Apple might assert that the iPhone is part of its family of marks, such as iPod, Schneck said. Cisco may worry that with Apple's entry, the name iPhone will become more generic.

Said Schneck: "I think it's a shot across the bow."

[biggles604]

Also, I believe that Apple has iPhone trademarked in other countries, they may be able to gain some control with that. My bet is though, Cisco will settle and made a good chunk o' $$$.

[Norman]

it's not about the trademark.. cisco just wants apple to play nice with their equipment

[Fast Orange]

doesn't iphone use a lower case i and cisco a capital I?

Does that not make a difference?

[.glib]

iDontKnow

[gearwh0re]

Originally Posted by .glib

iDontKnow

next time i see you i am gonna hit you in the face

[connor]

Originally Posted by gearwh0re

next time i see you i am gonna hit you in the face

please provide us with an iPhoto.

[.glib]

Originally Posted by gearwh0re

next time i see you i am gonna hit you in the face

You'll probably be able to do it while I'm blinded by your cueball head.