What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
77 Comments
- hungarianhc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+82Yawn...
"Other terms of the agreement remained confidential."
I'm guessing that's where the interesting stuff was... - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -8/+62The other terms included Steve Jobs giving a back rub to the CEO of Cisco every month.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41In other news, Cisco's mysterious iPhone product has been discontinued.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42"Apple must have had the upper hand ... Why else let someone use your name?"
Um, probably because Apple paid a truckload of money to Cisco to be allowed to use the name? - griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Well that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing......but publicity for both companies.
- Me1000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21There is a HUGE difference there...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21They obviously haven't had time to update the website yet.
- somnambulator, on 10/12/2007, -24/+39If iSee another iProduct iThink iWill iVomit!
- haydesigner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Actually, Jobs offered him his entire salary for the year. The Cisco CEO jumped at the offer, never bothering to look up how much Jobs is paid.
- thegreyfox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14All this silliness ..... iCaramba
- judicar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11digging you for the idiocracy reference
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A truckload? Damn those pennys! That's only $100 :(
- HesNikke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9/me points out that it was cisco who was on the attack and then caved.
apple might have been stupid for provoking the attack, but it was still cisco who caved. - alexlinebrink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"In other news, thousands of enraged customers from 'ebay.com' storm Apple Inc. headquarters after reportedly receiving a $200 VoIP phone, having paid $600 for their new 'IPhone'."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I'm sure you could chalk it up to Steve's negotiation tactics, not the lawyers.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12"Out comes the checkbook as they will have to pay big to the company that Apple's fans have tried to claim never had the rights to the name to begin with."
And true to form, flag564 pulls some bitter Apple-hating conjecture out of his butt and parades it around as fact.
Rational thinking trumps flag564 EVERY TIME!
Kind of ironic, eh? - zang74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hey flag,
Show me where in the article it stays that Apple gave any money to Cisco in this trademark dispute? Or where it was Apple that caved? Cisco fought to keep Apple from using the name, and in the end Apple will be using the name. That seems pretty much like a cut & dry win for Apple, no?
But surely FUD, bitterness and a lack of impartiality wouldn't ever cloud your statements, would it? - Kaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And thus concludes their month long publicity stunt for free advertising of the iPhone name.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9basically, they said ***** it
- Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It seems that everyone who hates Apple here is saying that OBVIOUSLY Apple lost, and has to pay a bucketload of money, or something like that. If you're Apple fans, you think Steve pwned Cisco. (There are a lot of negotiations where he's been proven to have done that -- eh, Cingular?)
There's no way of really knowing; that's why they keep the details secret. But look, if Apple wanted to call its next OS "Vista", Microsoft would not only sue, they would get an injunction against any use of their name, and it would be granted in a flash. All copies of Apple software called "Vista" would be seized like it was Mexican heroin. And the fines would be massive, maybe in the billions. That's because this is capitalism, and a trademark is the ultimate corporate property, and the law takes it very seriously.
The iPhone flap indicates a) that Cisco's entitlement to the trademark was, well, a little sketchy, having to do with the time between when it acquired the company that owned "iPhone," and the appearance of an "iPhone" this fall, when everybody and his brother knew about Apple's phone, and EVERYBODY was saying it was "iPhone", and the two companies were in heavy negotiations. (Does Cisco make anything else of the "i" variety? I don't think so.)
If Jobs thought that Cisco's claim was strong, he would NEVER have announced the iPhone before the negotiations were in order. Cisco was holding out into the eve of the keynote, hoping for a big score. Apple didn't bite. So the dance continued for another little while. But Cisco set deadlines and extended them, not a good sign. They were never looking for big money, or to force Apple to change its name, because they were never that INTO their iPhone. It's one of a hundred Wi-Fi phones. Look at it. They were hunting for cash.
Did they get any? Maybe. If so, not the HUGE sums people are saying. There's some "cooperation on security," and stuff that looks a lot like face-saving for Cisco. And Apple's bringing out an iPhone, just like they said. Of course, Cisco could keep a legal matter like this going for another year or two, so Apple wanted to settle before June. So, some money in the settlement? Yeah. Big money? No. They both threw in the towel, and both are companies that have a lot better things to do. - Harbinger67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5somnambulator, you now owe Apple four and a half billion. Good work.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And what's a trademark dispute got to do with customers?
- hybrid8, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Mark one up for Apple Legal
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Swift I think pretty much got it right. No matter who COULD have won in court, sometimes big companies look at the bottom line and say "Is this really worth it?" Especially when both companies benefit from each others products.
Broomett on the other hand...
"*****. If Cisco's claim was as weak as your want to believe, Apple would not have settled."
Sure they would. Why not? If neither company was going to gain all that much, cut a check and move on. But you being so business savvy knew that right?
"As for "Steve Jobs wouldn't have done this...Ummmm..Jobs has made LOTS of business mistakes. More than he has had successes. So far, the ONLY success that Apple has had in the last 20 years is the iPod (and iTunes) EVERYTHING else is an insignificant player in its market."
Yes Jobs had made plenty of errors. Not licensing the Mac OS early on was a huge mistake that it's too late to rectify without changing the very nature of their business. As far as successes go, I think the Apple II line could be considered a success, even the Mac line is. It doesn't have an overwhelming market-share, but it's been profitable for the company for most of its lifetime and that's how success is measured in business, but you knew that right?
"If Steve Jobs was such a genius, why did he boast that the iPod HiFi was going to put Bose out of business?"
I think you're misquoting, but hype is what Steve is very good at. Bill Gates remark that XP was the most secure OS they have ever released I think most would consider hype. Do you really want to go there? Really? By the way, I fixed your ranting spelling mistakes...you're welcome. - bellisland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6On to the next suit.
- mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who said Apple paid any money at all? They may have, but we don't know based on this article. Cisco's claim to the name was fragile at best in North America, and Apple had clear license in many other countries. It may well be Cisco who caved.
- Slashriffs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9I think you meant to say hand.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you Walter Cronkite
- sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think this proves that Apple knew exactly what they were doing all along.
- mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's google's new phone.
Which is written as a joke, but I would not be surprised to see it happen before long. - SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About bloody time too, it's been like one rolling Apple advert.
- defectDS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Well they didn't lose the name, did they.
- ehelbush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some post a new article when they get word of the payout, until then stop the speculative argument.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Give it a rest flag
Apple paid them off because it was easier and less time consuming than going to court for who knows how many years. Apple did the same with Creative last year. MS did the same with Apple by buying 150 million non-voting shares and updating MS Office for the Mac. Being right or wrong has little to do with patent disputes and everything to do with who's going to cut a check to make it go away.
Apple could fight this and MAYBE win...maybe not. Cisco did have a prior claim that they did nothing with until it was obvious that Apple was going to use the name themselves. Follow the money and find the meh.
In the meantime however much they paid to Cisco is nothing compared to all the free advertising Apple got for the iPhone. Notice there's been absolutely no ads for the iPhone beyond the Apple site? Why should they when even ankle-biting Apple haters like flag will advertise it for free on every website they can find? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If there was a monetary settlement, I think would be nominal. Mostly it is a non-aggression pact.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Apple obviously offered something big enough for Cisco to let them use the trademark. It probably had very little to do with Apple's "amazing lawyers""
Ummm, When you say "Apple" offered something big enough you are probably actually talking about those "Amazing Lawyers" you seem to be denying...Last time I checked it was the "amazing lawyers" job to handle lawsuits and patents. - bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know, but every Apple product I've ever bought has "Designed by Apple in California" printed in fine print somewhere. Maybe they've got a thing for geography.
- laustandphound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like they may have changed it to the gPhone? Maybe I'm just blind.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I think congratulations to Apple's accountants would probably be more appropriate. It takes stamina to write a check with that many zeros.
- SmartITGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cisco is the dumbest-ass company for giving in like that.
If the tables were turned, Apple would never ever ever ever concede. Apple would fight to the very death to remove someone else's right to put an i in front of any word on the planet. - erikbra81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why is Apple referred to in EVERY article as "the Cupertino-based company"? No reference to the location of Cisco hq. Is it because people like to say "Cupertino"?
- sitseller52, on 12/15/2008, -0/+0With all of this Iphone Hype you wonder if its worth all of the money they want. Im trying to win one right now, they provide proof of people who won. You could always try your luck, like me. You never know until you try.
http://bells-reviews.com/iphone-winners/winners.ht ...
Best of luck - ravenpen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Apple must have had the upper hand ... Why else let someone use your name?"
I don't think it anything to do with anyone having the "upper hand".
Cisco owned the "iPhone" trademark in the U.S. and Apple owned the trademark in the U.K., Europe, and a couple other places.
It sounds like it was probably just an exchange. Cisco lends their U.S. rights and Apple lends their rights for Europe. Everyone walks away happy. - alexlinebrink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Right... you really think just a "backrub"?
- meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3*****. If Cisco's claim was as strong as you want to believe, Cisco would not have settled.
- trendy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7cisco's iphone is still available on it website:
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Promotion_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1169671733334&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Product_C1&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1127783457023&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper - VoodiX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0as soon as the name Apple is involved, people start crawling out of their fancy caves screaming at everyone, leaving behind their common sense and the neutral/objective point of view...
Cisco did not want any money from Apple, they wanted interoperatibility/compatibility. Apple called the lawsuit silly and obviously didn't like the idea. Now they got an agreement and for me it looks like Cisco won this thing. Actually it's not about winners or losers. Apple can use the name 'iphone'. But so does Cisco. That means Cisco 'allows' Apple to use the name but Apple has no rights whatsoever. Since Cisco didn't want any money they surely did get other stuff they wanted, otherwise there would not have been an agreement. The last point would be that 2 months ago, most people on the internet where thinking about Apple when hearing the name 'iphone'. Nowadays, people know that there was a problem with that name and that Cisco owns the right on this name and even has phones with that name on the market. You see, Cisco made 3 good points. Apple certainly also got what they wanted but to me it seems as people here really think that Apple is the center of the world. Remember, without Cisco none of us would be on this website, writing stupid comments... Just because Cisco never had an aggressive marketing strategy before and uneducated people just didn't know what they were doing doesn't mean that they are somewhat small and unimportant... you guys have no idea who you are talking about here. - SleeStaK911, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dunno why the digg downs on kabooms post. (Well, i guess I really do...)
His is the most informed, and obviously educated post, based on real-world experience. This is the way it works past your own bias in the basement.
BTW, Cisco is the Goliath here - with Market Cap TWICE that of Apple, at about 140 Billion. Sure, they are not a big player in phones (how many have apple done?) but they have plenty of muscle when it comes to protecting their assets.
Jeez, most of you get it, but are just being obstinate for grins. Cute.
Hey, what if Cisco proposed they would block all iTunes traffic on public routers, and Apple would have to fall back to being a computer company, alone, without the iPod revenues? Can you spell C-R-A-P-P-E-R? - bigbreasts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0also steve jobs still insanely great, but larry ellison still insanely annoying
cisco chambers sleeps with satan spawn - SupaFupa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Interoperability my eye. Apple is built on the concept of incompatibility. We already made it perfect. why would you want to use anything else? The language stated that the companies would LOOK INTO interoperability. Yes the ipod works on windows. But do you think they would have even broke a million if it was Mac exclusive? Its compatible with windows, but not competitors mp3 players. Theres no way their going to give competitors mac software in a competing market.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is