What is Digg?40 Comments
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Cisco is not a litigious company. I believe I read that, in their entire corporate history, they've only sued one other company for copyright infraction.
Cisco says that Apple walked out on them during negotiations, not vice-versa. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -22/+32It's not a valid Cisco trademark. They failed to use it for years. They also didn't make an iPhone product. They re-branded an existing product so that they could claim they were using it. That's a scumy move. It's also not a legal trademark since it wasn't used for so long and showed not intention of being used.
- Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15How is it not a valid trademark? The University of Florida and University of Tennessee have been using Cisco brand iPhones. I think the UT purchase was fairly recent, but Florida has been using it for several years. The contracts and support agreements even plainly call them iPhones.
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@EBFoxbat:
"[Apple] have the power and money. The only edge that Cisco has is time."
Apple mkt cap: $73.75B
Cisco mkt cap: $161.66B
I think you'll find Cisco can throw more money at this than Apple can. The question is how much Cisco want the name. - Zique, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15@EBFoxbat
First you say Cisco didn't use it for years and then you say they rebranded and existing product to use it, which one is it?
The iPhone has been trademark since '96, well before Apple started using the i-suffix and Cisco released a product under the iPhone brand in 2006. Cisco clearly own the trademark and has used it, and that Apple is illegally trying to use the iPhone -name with its phone. It doesn't get much clearer than this. - drewish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8its a prefix... also, cisco didnt ruin linksys... well i guess it did, if by ruin you mean bring a more robust set of features to their prodccuts that you don't understand... thats like saying ferarri ruined the car because u dont know how to drive one.
- hungryJonJon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@Zique: this is what he was talking about http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
"Cisco lost rights to iPhone trademark last year, experts say
An investigation into the ongoing trademark dispute between Cisco and Apple over the name "iPhone" appears to show that Cisco does not own the mark as claimed in their recent lawsuit. This is based on publicly available information from the US Patent and Trademark office, as well as public reviews of Cisco products over the past year. The trademark was apparently abandoned in late 2005/early 2006 because Cisco was not using it." - lybertydotcom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+81. Read between the lines, and decipher the code:
" ... to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement ..."
Translation: to continue negotiating the price that Apple will need to pay to use the TradeMarked name " iPhone ".
2. nytimes? Just go to the source:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_013107.html - crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6See iPhone products.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/products_promotion0900aecd805b2855.html#iphone_family
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Product_C1&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1127783457023&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper - beaumont911, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Just because they have more time doesn't mean it will work out.
It probably will, but Cisco may not accept any offers. - theGecko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Many of you seem to assume that Apple didn't know. Do you REALLY think Apple would have called it the iPhone without some sort of plan of action?
This deal is deeper than you think.
Cisco will miraculously allow Apple to use the name, and in 5-10 years transfer ownership to them.
In turn, some new Apple Wireless Network, thingamabob or iThingamabob, will be produced or partnered by .... you guessed it.... Cisco.
Court is adjourned.
I need to get to my iCar so I can drive the iHighway, back to my iHome. "Honey, iHome!" - crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It means that apple is worried that Cisco will take it all the way, and ride them to court and win. So apple is worried that they will lose... like they should be. They should have named it pPod or iTele something different. Because apple know the name was taken already and still went with it.
Cisco all the way Baby! - Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -21/+24It's Cisco's trademark, apple needs to play by ciscos rules or find a new name, they have no where to play "hard".
- Steinzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@fyrfyter
Umm . . . not quite.
Trademarks, patents, and copyrights are all intellectual property rights, but that is where the similarity ends (at least between trademarks and the other two). Patents rights are generally granted for a period of 20 years, and as you said, the inventor need not actively produce or market their patented invention for the right to exclude others from doing so to be in force. Copyrights for written, visual, audio, electronic, and certain other creative works are generally granted for a period of the life of the author plus 70 years (or 95 or 120 years, in the case of corporations), and also need not be published or marketed for the copyright to be enforced.
Trademarks, OTOH, are different in a couple of significant ways. First, there is no "sunset provision" for the trademark rights, per se (meaning that the trademark rights don't automatically end after a certain number of years, though the trademark registration needs to be renewed periodically to remain valid); and second, trademarks MUST be used (and defended) to maintain the trademark right -- if a trademark is not actively used for a period of either 3 or 5 years (depending on the type of trademark), it can be declared "abandoned". Trademarks can also be lost if they become generic terms (for example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin"), or if they are not defended in court from unauthorized use.
It is likely that Cisco intends to keep the trademark right to the "iPhone" name (if they haven't already lost it through abandonment), but also intends to license the use of the "iPhone" name to Apple. This would explain the hasty rebranding of a product to again use the "iPhone" name, the lawsuit against Apple (which would be necessary to defend Cisco's rights to the "iPhone" name), the extension of time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit, and the renewed/continuing negotiations between Cisco and Apple regarding use of the "iPhone" name. - feech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If Apple did nothing wrong then they wouldnt have been trying to hammer a deal out with Cisco hours before the launch.
- WiZZLa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Infogear filed for "I PHONE" in 1993, and filed for the trademark "IPhone" in 1996. A product was actually released called an "iPhone" in 1998 from Infogear.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As posted before, Apple knows that Cisco actually lost the trademark. Early last year they were supposed to file an extension on the trademark which had not yet been in use, showing a product that did make use of the name. In the filing they took an existing shrink-wrapped product and placed an "iPhone" sticker on the outside.
Apple realized this and walked out of negotiations because they realized Cisco probably could not win any suit against them. They obviously would like to avoid court since it is expensive, but Cisco has a far weaker hand now and basically has to agree to get what they can on Apple's terms. It's in Cisco's best interest to make a deal because they will not look like complete idiots for letting the name lapse, it's a face-saving measure. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This is not necessarily in Cisco's ballpark. They filed late with the trademark office to keep the trademark and their proof of use photo was a box with a Avery label printed with iPhone on it. In other words, they just stuck it on the box to take a photo of the box. I doubt that is convincing evidence of current use of the trademark.
There's a picture of it here as well as more info regarding Cisco's failure to use its trademark.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236 - mjar81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's one of the shortest and to-the-point articles i've ever seen,
- ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4UH... because everything else that apple makes has an i prefix...
iMac (1998) - Prior to the cisco patent of "iPhone" in Nov of 1999
iPod (2001)
iLife
iWork
iBook
iTunes
etc etc - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I honestly don't care if Apple calls their phone the iPhone and in the long run I don't think Apple does either. What this does do is keep Apple's phone in the news while waiting for FCC approval without much cost (other than lawyers already paid for on retainer) to them. They'll probably milk it for all its worth, then just before having to actually go to court, capitulate and call the phone something else.
Want proof? How many stories are on Digg and other places talking about this? Who needs millions spent on SuperBowl ads when so many people are willing and seemingly eager to talk about it without a dime spent by Apple? - chuckpenzone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's all eMail nat@apple.com and see where things are at...
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apple realized at that time what a weak hold Cisco had on the name, that's why they backed out. Why pay Cisco a huge wad of cash when it's unlikely they could win a suit brought over the name?
That is a much simpler explanation for why Apple backed out than anything else, after all if Cisco really held the stronger hand here Apple would not want to make them angry and thus demand higher payments. - meteorash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As far as i know Cisco is not looking for a monetary compensation. They want to ride on the iPhone bandwagon cos they see profit in the long run.
- lar3ry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This doesn't make sense. Cisco says in the press release that the negotiations are being done "with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability." How can you possibly read that to mean that they may not accept any offers? Cisco is no SCO; they have a valid interest in protecting the assets that they purchased, which includes that particular trademark.
While Cisco's current iPhone is VoIP based, they clearly have the rights to do with their mark whatever it is that they want to do with it.
Apple realized this and entered negotiations with Cisco to use their trademark, and then walked out of the discussions the night before Jobs' announcement. If anything, Apple's antics seem to be disingenuous. - Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple: "You wana be friends???"
Cisco: "Ok I guess so, want to come play in the sand?"
Apple: "Sure, we can be best friends forever" - Derbigny5, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0Achieving interoperability has become a great asset in e-commerce. CISCO and Apple's info systems have achieved this using middle ware (i.e Iphone), EAI, and web services using UDDI. It's all about making a profit, and it looks like Apple has figured out the best way to take people's money.
- crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Cisco should take Apple all the way and if they did Cisco would win. If it was the other way around Apple wouldn't stop on any ground or for anything for Cisco. It should be the like back. Trademarks are very important and if you don't watch them you can lose them very fast. So go for the WIN Cisco!
Anyway all the ipods I have ever owned have failed. Either the screen scratchs to much, or the hd crashed, or the firmware gives out. iRiver has much solid products. I have not owned a zune, but I don't think I want one of those either. It is a music player and that is all I want. If I was walking around town or relaxing at the park with my tunes. I wouldn't want to watch movies. If I did I would have stayed home and done that. - mattclare, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple owns the trademark else ware in the world and they have a good case that it's a derivative of their existing trademarks - but Cisco/Linksys got to market first and owns the US trademark. Unless Cisco/Linksys really does just want to sue Apple, it's in both parties' interest to let each other use the name.
- meteorash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why can't they just name it iFone or something? Because Apple wants to show whos boss. Cisco is eventually going to get pushed out of the iPhone trademark and it will just be Apple all the way.
- catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this supposed to be a flamewar?
- geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In diplomacy/negotiations, etc. you shouldn't come out right away groveling and with a perception of weakness. When Apple signalled a willingness to fight, they probably got a better deal out of it. They knew they were in an inferior position, but there was no reason to signal Cisco they were going to roll over.
- DECwakeboarder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0That's too bad....
- fyrfyter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2It doesn't matter whether or not you use an idea, only if you own the trademark/patent for it. If you check with the U.S. patent office, people have patented and trademarked ideas for data transfer. How do you think RIM got into their big lawsuit over push email? Someone had already patented this idea for data movement. I just bought a patent for an item design. Nothing says I have to actually produce it, or even use it for that matter. But if someone else does infringe on my patent, I have the right to sue them, since I have the rights to the product, not them. I can't believe Cisco is playing the good guy in trying to work all this out. If it was apple, they would have taken it all they way to the bank, without problem. Go CISCO.
- macfanboi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Don't you just love the Fanboys! Cisco to Apple "We ownz your iPhonez! Oh and Appletalk SUCKS!"
- DaveClarkOne, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Apple should rename it ---why pay for a name that won't matter to a product that is expected to kill the other handsets. Hell, they could name it the ZunePhone and it wouldn't matter. Wait, MS owns the rights to Zune....
How about naming it the "aPhone"? What's the value of the letter "i" in the name. I think the whole thing is kind of silly. - ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3@ lybertydotcom
Have to aggree with you 100%.
The iPhone name means more and is of more value to Apple then it is to Cisco.
They just have to come to an aggreed price for the blackmail ...uhhh... "name transfer transaction". - yesno, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Great
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -31/+5Not great. Apple needs to not give it. This was a slimy move by Cisco. I'm pissed at Cisco since they ruined Linksys. The should fight this hard. They have the power and money. The only edge that Cisco has is time. They will still be in court when the iPhone comes out.
Fight long and fight hard, fight the good fight Apple.
... and add gigabit to the new Airport Extreme.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is