Cisco sues Apple over iPhone...

[Jeff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/...te/cisco_apple

SAN FRANCISCO - Cisco Systems Inc. said Wednesday it is suing Apple Inc. in federal court over Apple's use of Cisco's registered iPhone trademark for its new handheld device.

Cisco has owned the trademark on the name "iPhone" since 2000, when it acquired InfoGear Technology Corp., which originally registered the name.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/...te/cisco_apple

[DeltZ]

lol rinsed... i like :P

[LordofDoom]

Apple should have probably done their research first...

[Syn.]

hasnt anyone at Apple actually checked the records for the name "iPhone" before they even started planning the hardware?

I mean seriously, how dumb can you be, this is Sony type of dumb.

[yaddam205]

ZING!

What did i say in my post yesterday?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...62&postcount=2

"Waits for lawsuit from Cisco for trademark infringement."

-yesterday

[p0tter]

I mean seriously, how dumb can you be, this is Sony type of dumb.

im sigging that./

[Syn.]

im sigging that./

[Soulburner]

I can't help but laugh out loud at this...

[[XC] leviathan18]

wait all media said they could use iphone because of this.... so i supposed they reached an agreement about the name... i dont think apple is that dumb

[justin_c]

just wait, i thought engadget reported that they had settled this. http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/18/c...d-voip-phones/
well, i trust engadget as much as inq.

[Omastar]

I enjoy seeing Apple get owned.

[Vapor]

They were in talks, and Cisco gave them a verbal agreement and sent a contract, but apparently one party didn't like the terms.

Cisco says Apple didn't like it, which has me curious.....waiting for both sides to say something.

Worse comes to worst, it will be called Apple Phone and Apple pays legal fees.

[yaddam205]

I enjoy seeing Apple get owned.

that's what I'm siggin.

[Omastar]

I think 3 people have various witty things I've said sigged now. I truly feel like the belle of the ball.

[onewingedangel]

apple could fight it though, trademark or no trademark. apple could argue their rights to the name iphone through their branding of imacs, ibooks and ipods. As such any iphone would be associated with apple. In addition the imac came out in 98, and ibook in 1999. I suspect apple trademarked ipod a good deal before its 2001 launch as well. Apple establishes the i(product) name prior to the iphone trademark being granted. Apple do have good grounds to fight for the iphone name and trademark.

I'd suspect some sort of agreement will be made, where cisco rename their subsequent products and forfeit their trademark in return for some product bundling (eg. Cisco VOIP phone offered as an optional extra with new macs etc.)

[Vapor]

Apple would lose MISERABLY. Trademarks are first come, first serve. It is one of the few REALLY black and white legal areas.

Plus, Apple makes it a habit to infringe on trademarks. Know how many times they have LOST legal battles w/ the Beatles over the Apple logo and name? (Beatles Apple Records has gotten so much loot from Apple computer over the last 20 years it isn't even funny).

No, if there was no contract signed. Cisco owns apple on this.

Something tells me this is just Cisco saying: sign the damn paper, we don't mess around.

[JamesAvery22]

apple could fight it though, trademark or no trademark. apple could argue their rights to the name iphone through their branding of imacs, ibooks and ipods. As such any iphone would be associated with apple. In addition the imac came out in 98, and ibook in 1999. I suspect apple trademarked ipod a good deal before its 2001 launch as well. Apple establishes the i(product) name prior to the iphone trademark being granted. Apple do have good grounds to fight for the iphone name and trademark.

I'd suspect some sort of agreement will be made, where cisco rename their subsequent products and forfeit their trademark in return for some product bundling (eg. Cisco VOIP phone offered as an optional extra with new macs etc.)

IPHONE has been around since 1997...

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/94369.htm

"It further contends that it has used the name since June 6, 1997"

Absolutely no excuse. y? Stupid? Or both?

[onewingedangel]

It most certainly isn't black and white, if it goes to court both sides have a legitimate claim to the name. However the name doesn't benefit Cisco other than to benefit off of apples uses of the i(product) nonclamature. For them it would surely be better to come to an agreement where they can make money out of the situation.

For Apple, losing the case would be bad - but for Cisco winning doesn't benefit. So its liable to be settled before going to court, both sides are likely milking the conflict in order to better position themselves in the terms of the agreement, and media released statements are just one such tactic.

[justin_c]

yeah, they'll just pay.

[nn_step]

LMAO

[nn_step]

NO THEY DO NOT.

It most certainly isn't black and white, if it goes to court both sides have a legitimate claim to the name. However the name doesn't benefit Cisco other than to benefit off of apples uses of the i(product) nonclamature. For them it would surely be better to come to an agreement where they can make money out of the situation.

For Apple, losing the case would be bad - but for Cisco winning doesn't benefit. So its liable to be settled before going to court, both sides are likely milking the conflict in order to better position themselves in the terms of the agreement, and media released statements are just one such tactic.

Brent is right on this one, it would kinda be like AMD creating Athlon Core, Duron Core, etc Core, and then trying to copyright Core 2 Dual

[Major_A]

Easy fix, iFone. That is unless moviefone.com doesn't like them spelling "fone" the same way.

[3NZ0]

I enjoy seeing Apple get owned.

So true.....

[Mikesta]

The only reasonable posts in this thread are by onewingedangel and he is completely spot on. Many of the other responses are childish 'jibes' with no thought put into them.

Apple Records suing Apple Computers was really silly and was almost legal based opportunism rather then a valid defense of their 'Brand' / Trademark. This area of law in-of-itself is often quite inane at times, and one wonders why so many people are becoming cynical with the entire common law system.

[alexio]

hasnt anyone at Apple actually checked the records for the name "iPhone" before they even started planning the hardware?

I mean seriously, how dumb can you be, this is Sony type of dumb.

Dumb? No way man, this is the exact media attention they want. Big companies do this all the time. Apple knows there is a very good chance they loose in court, so they put some half assed lawyers on the case to make it not too expensive. Afterwards everybody knows of Apple's new product name, and what name they really wanted to use.

You're dumb if you seriously believe Apple didn't know the iPhone name was registered already.