What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
161 Comments
- 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71silly just like the stink apple put up when they found out other companies were using "ipod"?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3482
go suck a lemon apple... - billgateslacky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36This is coming from a company that trademarked Podcast...
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38The real matter here is whether other companies use the iPhone name already. If Apple can prove that they do and that Cisco did nothing about it, then they have grounds to ignore the trademark since Cisco did not try to uphold it before. However, in doing so Apple shoots themselves in the foot for trying to protect it at well.
- bias, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Apple was suing people that use "Pod" on their products, now they are saying Cisco is silly...
nice, both the company and the fanboys are hypocrites. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35"They have a point."
No they don't at all, they are using another companies trademark. Like they did with the Nano (Creatives). - PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Apple wouldn't allow anyone to use their trademark. So why should Cisco?
Cisco has every right to sue Apple.
Apple shouldn't monopolize the "iSomething", they didn't invent it. - speezer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Microsoft should start using the Apple name on its products.
- 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21But then I Joe Nobody, can start selling iPhones, because if apple gets away with it trademark free, then so can i.
Prepare for the Digg iPhone, the Myspace iPhone, the Google iPhone ect.
If apple doesnt get a license, or gets use by proving that cisco doesnt uphold trademarks, then that means everyones in the clear. - SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@bias:
Fanboys are always hypocrites, regardless of what they're a fan of, it's practically a requirement. - dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30it's not supposed to be slim, its a VoIP phone not a cell phone you ass!
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Wow.
They obviously didn't think it was "silly" when they spent the last few weeks frantically trying to negotiate terms with Cisco before the iPhone announcement at MacWorld.
But when those negotiations failed to complete in time for the planned announcement, they decided to say to hell with trademark law, go ahead with it anyway, and then pretend the inevitable trademark lawsuit is "silly".
They will almost certainly settle this lawsuit or they will lose, and I hope they do. Their hubris deserves to be punished. - benb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18They are also not the same as trademarks. :)
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Not just that but didn't they also go after ipodder and make them change their name?
Apple is the biggest offender in regards to suing over trademark issues. - srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15If you trademarked iPhone and some pushy company tries to steal it, what would you do.
Cisco is 100% right and Apple is 100% wrong.
It's not like this is surprising to either company. Hell, I heard about this at least a month ago.
What this boils down to is that Steve J. thinks he can get away with anything.
Not this time, Steve! - shark615, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16So what the iPhone was filed for registration in 1996 before iAnything.
- DiggCommando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Say hello the the (applelogo)Phone
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Yeah they're not that big; their equipment just fills the racks of every NOC from the smallest office to the largest skyscraper. Not that big at all.
- Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Seeing all the Apple fanboys trying to defend them is really funny. Its like 10,000 wannabe lawyers who think they know what there talking about.
- blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Did Apple hire Sony's PR department?
- sunnyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9By no means am I a law expert, however if what Cisco claims is true in that they were in the middle of discussing whether they can come to terms in 'sharing' the iPhone name, and Apple suddenly announced their new product's (trademarked) name without closing the discussion that was in still in session, Cisco should not be expected to send a cease and desist letter at that time. That would be just plain rude, causing a bad business relationship, and I assume the courts would realize that.
- da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Here's my question why would apple just not pay cisco off, cisco clearly owns the trademark instead of wasting time fighting it out in court then settling why didn't they just buy the trademark.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Cisco had the iPhone trademark before there was even an iPod. Apple says it's silly because they can't win.
- Kjeserud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This?
http://puntabulous.com/wp-content/dynatac.jpg
Wish I had that kind of phone, looks pretty good. - EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think Apple Phone is taken...
http://www.apple-museum.gr.jp/museum/tenji/3d08.jpg
Hehe - mecca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8This is almost certainly a case where Apple's lawyers told Apple not to launch a product called 'iPhone' without an agreement from its trademark holder, and Jobs, being the ass that he is, just told them to go ***** themselves. Apple really put themselves in a bad spot, because obviously if Apple was negotiating with Cisco, it knew about Cisco's trademark, and consequently, if the court decides in Cisco's favor, Apple is liable for triple damages plus Cisco's court expenses. Furthermore, since Apple has now released and marketed a product called iPhone, losing would cost them more than just damages, try either the embarrassment of having to re-brand their product or a huge amount of money to Cisco (way more than before, since Apple has invested a lot more in iPhone brand than they had before MacWorld).
In short, there is no way any lawyer from Apple recommended this course of action, rather, Steve Jobs, a man known for such classy moves as habitually parking in the handicapped space, ripping off Woz, and banning books from a certain publisher at the Apple store, can add another notch to his belt.
For legal analysis:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=operating_systems&articleId=9007879&taxonomyId=89&intsrc=kc_top - tensvb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7LOL Cisco is about 5 times bigger than Apple
- biv2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6only 174 billion big, not big at all, no...
- Mosatii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Ah, you can't trademark the "i" prefix.
- 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12for some reason the comment disappeared when i tried to edit... here is another link
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/24/with-pod-on-lockdown-apple-goes-after-podcast/
i say again, go suck a lemon apple... - TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The phone formerly known as the iPhone?
- ClaiE, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Dreams... Dreams... Dreams....
Apple should think about a good compromise.. because if they don't want to pay.. then they gonna have to change the name.
Cisco is much much Bigger than Apple inc... and has everything to sue and explode Apple about this story. - biv2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8From what I've seen reported on Apple the past year, I'm beginning to consider them more shady and obnoxious than Microsoft.... I'm hoping Apple receives a good 'shoe-ing' from Cisco from this.
- bardo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Looks like Cisco and another company Teledex has the trademark. not sure how that will resolve itself without a huge chunk of cashing going to the trademark owners..
You can search the trademarks from here: http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Am I the only one who checked out http://www.iphone.com ?
- zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think apple stole the POD from peapods.com remember that company with little VW bugs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Apple HAD to go after those using "Pod" names to protect their copyright"
Yes of course. The term "Pod"Cast is banned in all countries with copyright law. Silly me. And lets not forget those evil copyright breaching peas... - srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Only the Cisco trademark is valid. It's the only one with a registration number.
- SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@da_bradler:
Apparently they were in negotiations with Cisco prior to it's release, however they couldn't reach a reasonable agreement. However now that they've gone and used it anyways, it will end up costing Apple much, much more.
Though the above makes a good point, there are already many iPhones on the market, and the trademark was obviously not being protected. And also, a trademark is about not confusing consumers, and, if you google iPhone in Google or Yahoo, it's obvious what is first thought of by the majority of consumers.
This will be an interesting court case to follow. - LurkerSteve2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This isn't out of character for Apple. They tried to claim that they invented the windowed GUI, even though Xerox actually invented it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.
I find it hilarious that people claim Microsoft is a bully but ignore Apply when they claim ownership of windowed GUIs, "pod", and ignore trademarks that they don't own. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The question I have is about my company. I have a tattoo shop called "Apple Ink" and now Apple changed their name to Apple Inc. Maybe I should sue the ***** out of them.
- TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where's the clamshell version? And the slider?
- Iccanui, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4sorry cisco. Your lack of concern till now will come back to haunt you in court i predict. You show yourself as out to get apple for cash, not patent infringement.
http://iphone.com/
http://www.amazon.com/iPhone-Skype-Ready-Phone-Black/dp/B000I0U5HU
http://www.iphonecom.com/
Now on top of that, they are 2 different devices. One is a ip based phone and the other is a cellphone/pda/mp3 player. They arent even in the same market. Anyone remember the apple computers vs apple records deal?
I dont wanna see anyone not get what they deserve, but i just dont see why cisco winning and i see apple getting publicity and getting more sales. Hmm, wonder if that was the intention. - zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Go down to San Jose, CA and take a cruise on First St.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That should have been the name anyway. When Apple decided to call the iTV the appleTV, they should have just gone ahead and called their cellphone the applePhone. Makes more sense anyway, no copyright issues, and with the appleTV they've already set the nomenclature standard for things to be named AppleWhatever.
- DJNephilim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are aware that trademark law makes it pretty clear that you have to actively defend the trademark in order to keep it, right? If Apple can show that Cisco has been lax in that defense of trademark (i.e. there are other products on the market which use the name, that haven't been issued a C&D or sued) then Apple might just win it.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think they are related to Cisco at all.
Cisco might've lose their trademark without even knowing it. - toomuchpete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@gsadamb
No. Settlement negotiations are not admissible in trials for this exact reason. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Just a way for Cisco to get some extra publicity and talk about their product."
Well, you're talking about it, genius. - dpittman42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is hardly new, Apple has done this many times. Just like when they broke the agreement they made with Apple Records. "I am Steve Jobs ego, resistance if futile..."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they can prove other companies are using the trademark and Cisco did nothing about it then they will be in the clear.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
