What is Digg?216 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+244No idiot, the company that Cisco acquired had trademarked this name long before the iMac ever came along, and LONG before this announcement. Cisco is not "boo-hoo"-ing they are defending a trademark that is rightfully theirs.
Furthermore Cisco does not even want money off of Apple, they want interoperability. That was in the article you obviously didn't read.
Apple is trying to bully a trademark with deceptive tactics. That has worked in their past trademark protective suits, but this time they tried it vs. a bigger company than themselves and they are probably going to get screwed.
Anyway, read the ***** article and go suck more apple dick please. I mean seriously, I am a fan of apple products and own many but the blind sort of fanboy-ism that comes out of people like you is ***** ridiculous, especially since you have no ***** clue what you are talking about. - shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -23/+161the copyright dates back to 1996.... moron.
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+81> "the copyright dates back to 1996.... moron."
Copyright? I think you mean Trademark. - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -17/+83Apple is not the first one that came up with this ***** in the first place. They were just the first ones that over used it and made it mainstream.
Sorry but Apple is in the wrong here. - syl1985, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41Good point, but with Apple protecting so vivaciously their own intellectual property this is making them look EXTREMELY hypocritical.
- evhan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45"The case hinges in part on whether Apple's phone... could confuse shoppers looking to buy Cisco's IPhones."
There are shoppers looking to buy Cisco's IPhones? - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Really?
I don't think it really matters what is in the mind of consumers in this situation.
When I think lowercase i, I think of the internet craze in the late 90s.
Apple did not came up with iXXXX, you know.
Compaq iPaq
Cisco iPhone
Apple just overused the iTerm, and put it on everything they sell. Now they act like they own it. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32@ unit101
"Regardless of whether Infogear had the patent only 1 year before iMac came out, it doesn't change the fact that Cisco tried to capitalize on all the Apple iPhone hype to launch it's own product. The case is not as black-and-white as some people are making it seem. This article ignores one of the biggest arguements Apple can use, which is the fact that Cisco did not defend their trademark for years."
So what if they are trying to capitalize off of Apple's "iPhone" hype, they wouldn't be the first company to try this. The case is about a trademark that Cisco apparently legally owns. If this is true, then Apple has not legal standing to use "iPhone" unless they pay Cisco for the use of the trademark.
@ geminitojanus
It doesn't matter if Apple can cite links between Apple and "iPhone". If Cisco owns the trademark, they own it. Once Apple tries to use the name itself without consent, they violate the trademark. - PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28@geminitojanus
Apple has never officially announced they had an iPhone project until just a couple days ago. Just because websites all over the net said apple should do an iPhone doesn't make proof that apple has officially said they will. You can't sue someone for trademark infringement when they haven't even made or said they were going to make a product. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+43as much as i love Apple as a company and their amazing state of the art products, I have to take Cisco's side on this one.
- kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29unit101
"Cisco tried to capitalize on all the Apple iPhone hype" - ok, so Cisco rightfully owns the name iPhone, Apple knowing this decide they're going to fight and try and use it anyway. Now lets also remember that the official product announcement was just a couple days ago, prior to that it was just speculation what Apple would call their phone product.
So given this I'm supposed to agree with you that Cisco is evil because they didn't jump to litigate before the official announcement, based upon a rumor that apple may use iPhone name for their new product. Furthermore I should view Cisco negatively because they are using Apples attempt to steal their property (the iPhone name) to further their own product. Seriously, doesn't your point seem the least bit silly to you?
As far as Cisco defending their trademark, they are doing it in a timely fashion. I do not see Cisco trying to block Apple from using the iMac, iPod or iTunes names, only the iPhone, which was... wait for it... announced two days ago.
I do agree that legal matters in situations like this are never B&W but everyone is saying that Cisco's case is pretty good and Apple has a tough road to fight. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I fully expect Apple to capitulate and use another name for the iPhone at some point in the future, I personally think Apple wants the fight for the name to bring media attention to their product.
I won't even mention the similarity to this vs. Apple's fight with Apple records when Apple was formed and again when they released iTunes - MediaShipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23a tad off topic
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@ geminitojanus
"This is where you're wrong. If a company owns a trademark, they've got to USE the trademark and DEFEND the trademark. That's the whole point of the trademark system: associating a word with a company, so that the word is "protected" and that people won't be confused between which company the word belongs to.
Apple's only defense is "well, Cisco wasn't using the word, and they didn't protect it in these thousands of instances we can cite." This can dissolve the trademark, giving Apple right to use, and to trademark, the word iPhone for themselves. It depends on a judge's decision if Cisco tried to defend it enough."
Read the Article:
"Last spring, Cisco began selling a line of bulky but inexpensive IPhones that make free long-distance calls over the Internet, a technology known as voice-over-Internet protocol. Amazon.com sells them for as little as US$12, though they require extra software and hardware and are usually sold in kits that start around $70 and can cost $200 or more."
Also:
Cisco's trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office describes "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks."
Gee, that seems like what the "Apple iPhone" wants to be. I guess Cisco has legal standing...If those instances that Apple cites are nothing but Rumors, that has no leagal standing. Only if someone used the name "iPhone" for a tangible product that does "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks." without Cisco challenging it, can Apple have a legal standing with citations, if I'm right, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is 100% true. - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Well you can feel however you want, but that's not going to change the judges decision.
- beaunewcomb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21So Apple is trying to claim that iPhone is too generic to trademark... yet, they try to force people not to use the word "podcast" or really any variation of the word "pod" ... sounds like a major double-standard.
To call the word iPhone as commonplace as "aspirin" is a joke... I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on. - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Why would Apple use iAnything? Couldn't they us aPod or aPhone?
Do a quick search and you can see that other companies used the lowercase i before apple did.
The i came from the 90s internet craze, it's not something that Apple came up with.
You can blindly believe that all things i should belong to Apple, but the fact is they don't. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"Why the hell woudl Cisco use iPhone in the first place?? "
They had the name trademarked BEFORE Apple jumped on the iName bandwagon!!!! - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Let's not forget that Cisco has been bargaining in good faith with Apple over use of the trademark.
If a company had to file legal briefs every time someone used their trademark name in a rumor about some other company they would go broke! - themarq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@funkychikensays
For the same reason I can't open a burger joint called "Marq's McDonalds." - h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14For those idiots (including the Apple spokeswoman) who keep saying that Cisco or InfoGear have never enforced their trademark rights in the past:
http://digg.com/gadgets/Proof_Cisco_InfoGear_protected_the_iPhone_trademark_in_the_Past - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Nobody ever responds after they get totally owned :(
- leftfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Barry Cohen, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Thorp Reed & Armstrong, said Cisco had a strong argument. Judges usually allow products from different companies to share the same name only when they're starkly dissimilar - Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet, for instance.
1cm above what you copied and read(I hope), you must have goldfish-like memory retention - InsomniaSlim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@UltimaNut
Somehow I'm feeling your screen name is very apropos considering your arguments... and word usage.
This is a case of trademark infringement, period. If Apple created something called an iPaq, you'd better believe HP would be all over it.
I think Cisco had a right to call their product whatever they wanted, as well as trademark it, and I doubt it was to ride the wave of Apple. They created an internet phone, called it the iPhone. Apple felt like they could announce their product without completing negotiations, so Cisco is defending its mark... and rather respectfully, I might add. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11FTA: Cisco's trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office describes "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks."
It doesn't matter if the product confuses consumers or not, they are using "iPhone" for the same exact reason as stated in the trademark, that's already a violation.
@ geminitojanus
Also, how can Cisco defend its trademark on a product that was not revealed to the Public, and thus, never a trademark violation. For all we know, before the showing at CES, Apple could've called it the "iCell", not "iPhone" as was rumored. If they called it "iCell" at CES, Cisco would have no standing to even file the Lawsuit. Once Apple promoted "iPhone" as its own, it then becomes a trademark infrigment. It's not an infringement if people speculate the name is "iPhone" without Apple making an official announcement. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ randomgeek
Let's assume that your argument has legal standing, that any product with a "i" before it does not equal a trademark. If that's the case, why does Apple need to negotiate with Cisco to use "iPhone":
"Apple first asked Cisco in 2001 to acquire or license rights to the name."
So, given your statement and this line from the article, which one makes more sense. Well, if Apple needed to ask, then naming schemes can't be trademark protected, and the term "iPhone" belongs to Cisco.
Also, by your argument, why didn't Apple sue Cisco over "iPhone" when they released the product? Because they can't, Cisco owns the Trademark. - unit101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13My point is that yes Cisco is defending their trademark, but it might be too late. For instance, http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_4&crid=153&contentid=503 a VOIP phone from Teledex, which is a lot more similar to Cisco's product than Apple's. There is another iPhone product as well out there from another company, which supposedly Cisco did not try to stop from using their trademark.
If Apple can prove that Cisco didn't defent their trademark they could loose the trademark. In fact, Britain filed in 2006 to have Cisco's trademark be revoked for lack of use (5 years of non-use constitutes abandonment in Britain). I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any insights into what each legal team is planning, I just think this whole situation is fascinating. If Steve Jobs really did make the keynote knowing the mess it would create, he has some cojones... - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9There is virtually no difference between Apple releasing the iPhone blowing off Cisco and Eric Bauman (Ebaum's World) releasing "Lindsay Lohan doesn't change facial expressions" blowing off YTMND.com
- donKey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Good read. I definitely side with Cisco now.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8How did you manage to read that part, but not the preceding sentence?
He was talking about how it's acceptable for two companies to share the same name like with Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets because their businesses don't overlap. As a joke he added that they may overlap in an airplane's restroom. - jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How fast can DIGG users bury this to -20?
- spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Before you go on about the McDonald's coffee case, you might want to read up a little bit:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://friends.macjournals.com/mattd/hotcoffeemyth - Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dude.... Wait, what?
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Come to think of it, now the iPhone UI doesn't seem so innovative anymore to me, and that was apparently the only thing it had going for it. The iPhone UI reminds a lot of Palm OS.
- GenXXX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8ashwinmudigonda, what in the hell are you talking about?
- Kale, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9D'oh! I guess I should apply for a refund for that speed reading course.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Only apple fanboys are stupid. And they aren't human.
- ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Couldn't agree more.
- kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I've said it before and I'll say it again, I fully expect Apple to capitulate and use another name for the iPhone at some point in the future, I personally think Apple wants the fight for the name to bring media attention to their product."
http://associatedpress.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/12/517473-apple-renames-iphone-to-itouch-mobile
Yes, quoting myself is pompus. I wonder if unit101 and the rest of the apple fanboys still think Cisco is evil for trying to "steal" iPhone from Apple. Apparently Apple knew they couldn't win this against Cisco, got what they wanted, extra media coverage and have now moved on.
When the phone launches I'll bet dollars to donuts that the reports on the evening news will say something to the effect "Apples iTouch Mobile phone went on sale today, you may remember it as the iPhone, that was until Cisco sued Apple forcing them to change the name". People will call it a iPhone even if the label says iTouch (myself, I want you to touch me.... oops sorry). - javaroast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@unit101
Teledex? Go to the USPTO website and do a trademark search. Looks like the Trademark has an initial letter of suspension along with all other active iPhone trademarks other than Cisco's. I wonder who could be defending their trademark??? - jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Humans are stupid. I'm with you.
- ispcaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Step1
First you must to stop talking out your asses like you understand trademark law.
Step2
You need to investigate what 'class' (understand a trademark is made up of classes) and description the Cisco iPhone name is trademarked under.
Step3
Then post something worth reading.
Next. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4iFone is phonetically similar to iPhone, and you can lose a trademark for phonetic similarities just as easily as spelling similarities.
- jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Community news websites only remind me just how stupid humans are.
I'm getting my news from google bots from now on. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I suspect that Apple launched it with the name iPhone knowing that by the time they released the product they would have to change the name to Apple Phone, or iPod Phone or something but the month or two of hype and prelaunch legal battle would be enough to cement the name iPhone into peoples heads as being the "real name" even if they end up calling it something else.
- futureb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i thought that same thing. was ocean telecom applying for the trademark? so how could apple use them? to own the trademark & then license it to apple? or were they just trying to set up a situation where it looks like multiple companies want the trademark, so it's common usage.
need more info... - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -1/+5I'm still a bit fuzzy on how this "Ocean Telecom" was being used to try to get around the trademark. The article is a bit sparse on details.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sure, as being sued is great marketing...
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ geminitojanus
Was Apple making off of the name "iPhone", NO, because it was nothing but rumors, none of which were confirmed by Apple. Since no money was being made, why should Cisco have to defend their trademark? The moment that Apple uses the name, they violate the trademark. They could've very easily chose another name instead of iPhone, but they didn't.
Also, what company used the name "iPhone" before Apple? Infogear, which was aquired by Cisco. If another company used the name, then by means they should have defended it, if it were to cause customer confusion, which, unless they were building a phone, it would not. - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know that Toyota was sued for their "Lexus" name by a company that owned the trademark to "Lexis"... I'm guessing that legally speaking, iPhone and iFone are the same thing.
- jackmacokc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i say kudos cisco....stick it to the mac fanboys
-
Show 51 - 100 of 212 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is