What is Digg?41 Comments
- superpatty, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23this may all be moot at this point
word is flying around the nets that cisco may have lost the iPhone trademark when it didn't following the guidelines for maintaining a valid trademark
"In order to keep a trademark registration active, you have to file a Declaration of Use on or before the sixth anniversary of the registration date, in which you state, under penalty of perjury, that you have been using the trademark continuously during that period. The sixth anniversary would have been 11/16/2005."
from:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
digg article:
http://www.digg.com/apple/Cisco_lost_rights_to_iPhone_trademark_last_year_experts_say - m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Wow, could you imagine if Skype got loaded onto the iPhone?
As long as you are within a hotspot or wi-fi network, you could call any where in the US/Canada unlimited for $15 a year...
holy *****! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Now if we can get people to use "moot" correctly.
- skeletron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Are you sure VoiP is not too demanding for a company working so closely with Cingular?
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9how would cingular feal about that?
pretty *****. - turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11that is the statement from cisco... they could have been asking for a lot more. or things that would have compromised the whole experience. We just don't know yet.
- GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Define "perhaps".
"Perhaps" Apple would like to spend $10,000,000 more researching a feature that has yet to get a viable foothold in the mobile sector.
/sarcasm - YoctoYotta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@xshaisu
At least he didn't say mute. - MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Is Skype allowed on other smartphones. are people using it to make calls for $15 a year?
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think that's the exact reason why Apple refused to deal with Cisco.
They are technically a Phone carrier if they put their Internet Phone software on Apple's iPhone, and as we all know Apple has a 2 year exclusive agreement with Cingular already. - glasgowm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6According to the article Ciscos demands weren't too demanding.
Perfect interoperability with their routers and perhaps making the phone VoIP. - radiohead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I was at Macworld and watched the hour-long demo in the theater. Twice. I watched the presenter use the phone and thought, "of course, that's how these things should work". It's revolutionary because it is so easy to understand how to use the advanced functions that many phones have, but are difficult for many people to use. Watch the keynote. Look at the demos on Apple's iPhone site. The revolution is that it's easy, clear, simple, and yet powerful.
- tnoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So, revolutionary is charging around twice the price of its nearest competitor to do the same things it does, but make it a little easier?
- Gadianton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A declaration of use does not require continuous use. Before the 6 anniversary of the trademark registration the trademark owner may file a Section 15 Declaration and the owner has used the trademark continuously during that time. If the owner files the Section 15 declaration the mark becomes incontestable (meaning that it is harder to contest in court).
The filing required by the USPTO is a Section 8 filing and it DOES NOT require continuous use. The trademark owner must show that the mark is currently used in commerce or that the owner has a good excuse why the mark is not currently in use.
Cisco filed the Section 8 papers and the USPTO accepted the Section 8 filing. Some people have claimed that the Section 8 may have contained fraudulent statements, but the fact of the matter is that Cisco is in a much better position with regards to the iPhone mark than Apple is. Cisco owns the mark, they have had products that have used the mark in the past and they have current products with the mark. Apple had notice of Cisco's mark and infringed on the mark in a very public way. Apple will have an uphilll battle in canceling Cisco's mark or defending their infringment of the mark. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"yet apple fanboys still insist that Apple can do no wrong and isn't in it for the money!"
Apple is in it for the money. There, I admitted it. - Hagane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i have no idea what kind aof interoperability cisco is talking about but it seems cisco just wanted to be apart of the awesome iphone and apple doesn't want to let them in on the awesomeness just cause they own a trademark
- wphj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Zybch,
You are the latest edition in my policy of banning anyone who calls anyone a fanboy.
Goodbye! - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2zybch - I agree with you on one point, but at some point, they are just surviving. If all cell phone networks get replaced by VoIP and wireless internetS, that's all well and good in the city but the highway and remote areas will leave you stranded. And because the "greedy" cell companies don't have towers any more, you can't use your phone. There are two sides to the coin.
- Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I suppose Apple partnering with Cingular, Google, and Yahoo on the iPhone just isn't in their DNA either...
- monsieurevil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A whole 3 partners - very impressive. Eh, how exactly are they partnered with Yahoo and Google on that phone, other than including their apps to defray costs (just like Dell does with crapplications). Are you honestly stating the Apple partners like say, Microsoft, Redhat, or Novell do? Apple's worked in an almost absolute vaccum for 30 years (exception below). Hence the huge computer marketshare of sub 1% worldwide and at best, 2% in the US.
And that tiny exception? When they encouraged partnerships and 3rd party ISV's to create software for the only Apple computer that was ever a success, the Apple II series, holding them at 80% marketshare for a few blissful years. - Gadianton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Another point to mention. Even if Cisco's federal trademark registration is canceled, Cisco will have state and common law trademark rights. That is why even if a mark is listed as dead on the USPTO federal register you still have to investigate whether the mark is in use. There are many reasons a mark might be dead on the register, not the least of which is failure to file the Section 8 Declarations. (An easy mistake to make as the USPTO does not give notice of the filings and most people's calendars are only 1 year in advance.) The company may still be doing business and using the mark. Loss of federal registration does not equate to abandonment of the mark.
I would must rather be representing Cisco in this suit than Apple. Infringing on Cisco's mark at CES was surely not advised by Apple's lawyers. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple declined to comment, so this article is only presenting one side of the story.
Of course Cisco is only going to describe themselves and their demands in the most favorable terms. - theiggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1cisco really screwed the pooch on this one. its clear now they've done the equivalent of website cybersquatting in the hopes of leveraging a deal with apple. its reprehensible and obviously won't hold water in court. apple will have the iphone trademark by the time it ships.
good on apple to not cave in to cisco's manipulative practices.. - shrigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The possibility of running Skype _alongside_ a minimal cingular contract sounds pretty wicked to me.... Obviously VOIP on Apple's phone makes both Cingular and Cisco quite nervous. 3rd party hacks, anyone?
- mariuspopovici, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even if you install Skype you're still stuck with the 2 year Cingular contract and the $80/month bill ($39 for the 450 minutes and $39 for the PDA Connect service). Who sad being cool these days is cheap?
- radiohead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If a function of any device is too difficult for someone to figure out how to use, that function may as well not be there. In fact, it makes the overall device worse because it adds more complexity to the UI. I've read lots of complaints from people wanting just a cell phone that makes calls without all the crufty interface for pictures, chatting, etc. Well, the iPhone interface gets out of your way if all you want is to make a call. It also makes it inviting to try out more complex functions becuase they've simplified the interface so much. I see the iPhone being popular and having a huge influence on the cell phone market in 2-3 years.
- iamexcite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's here now (so long as you have a PocketPC or Windows Mobile-powered smartphone)
http://www.skype.com/download/skype/mobile/ - G2SF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is looking more and more like the Donald Trump versus Rosie O'Donnell publicity stunt. Both companies have had a few years to resolve this non-issue. The fight over the iPhone name just serves to keep both companies top of mind even after the initial "Wow" of the iPhone is fading away.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Word is if you read the trademark entry at the USPTO, you would realize that Cisco's trademark has nothing to do with phones. Possibly, just possibly, someone at Apple read their trademark entry at the last minute and said "WTF, let's take our chances in court".
- jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6None of this matters. Apple has a revolutionary product. Very well thought out. They did their homework. It doesn't matter if they call it is called the apple phone or the zune phone it will succeed. It's the old adage, if you build a better mousetrap people will buy it. Apple has clearly built a better mousetrap. They have patented the interface. Sure the version of the iphone that was shown at macworld is expensive, however the interface and technology will appear in less expensive ipods and iphones and who knows what else. The Cisco issue matters little, if at all. No dig.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4In other news AT&T has dropped the name "cingular" after buying them up and reforming the huge evil empire which was previously split up. AT&T is now huge telecoms co again and will no doubt have the wonderful customer service which comes from such companies.Apple iphone users get ready to bend over for your new masters!
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3From what I've experienced, VOIP would be horrible over most cell networks. The networks are way too slow, at least in the USA.
- D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4What exactly is revolutionary about it? What capabilities does it have that are new?
And you keep saying that there /will be/ less expensive iPods and iPhones in the future, but how is that in any way relevant to liking the current iPhone? Are people making decisions to buy things because a new version of a product will come out in the future? I'd say it's the contrary.
I don't care what /will/ come out, and neither do any other critics of the iPhone. What we are concerned with is this current product, which we look at as an isolated product.
Seriously, imagine the iPhone. Now remove the Apple logos. What can you do with this that you couldn't do with a $200+ cheaper smart phone? A $400+ cheaper camera phone? Doing everything by touching the screen will get old fast with no physical buttons to fall back on. - jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2sounds to me like Apple wants it cake and be able to eat it too. They want the iPhone name, which is ostensibly owned by Cisco, but Apple doesn't want to work with Cisco. Apple's choices are, (a) change the name; (b) work with Cisco; or, (c) defend a trademark infringement suit, which likely would take much longer than 5 months to do, which would bring Apple past the release date of the Apple iPhone, at which point Cisco would request an injunction to either prohibit Apple from releasing the phone or from using the iPhone name if they release before the suit is resolved.
- televisible, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Simple and Easy just make it " I.phone" instead of iphone. Funny they can come up with such an great product but so stupid in practicing business. They need some nasty businessman in the company.
- monsieurevil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"But while Cisco has a track record of successfully partnering with other large companies, such as IBM or HP, Apple does not typically operate this way.
And as a result, Keravala conceded that an Apple/Cisco partnership is unlikely to happen. 'It's just not in Apple's DNA.'"
and by Apple's DNA, he meant Steve Jobs'... - trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Just like the other providers feel about other phones THAT CAN ALREADY DO THIS NOW. Technology, FTW.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1OMG, i stuck my finger in my butt and i cant get the smell off!
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"Typical greedy bastards, and yet apple fanboys still insist that Apple can do no wrong and isn't in it for the money!"
First, it's called a Contract.
Second, as far as Apple fanboy goes, they all know Apple's in for the money, this is what we called a business. - cmajewski, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4It is a "moot" point. No matter what happens, or what "iPhone" product Cisco comes out with - it will ALWAYS be known as an Apple, Inc. product.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Its crazy. Why on earth WOULDN'T apple want to do this, unless of course it curtailed the backhand payments from cingular for the phone to be locked to their network.
Typical greedy bastards, and yet apple fanboys still insist that Apple can do no wrong and isn't in it for the money!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is