>>blapierreWell, the other three "live" trademarks aren't trademarks that other companies are "trying" to register the mark but that they are already registered and viable. From the USPTO FAQ:"A live trademark registration means that the registrant has filed all necessary maintenance documents and the trademark remains viable"<a class="user" href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/transcriptst_z.htm">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/transcriptst_z.htm</a>And if you read further:"However, remember that marks approved by the USPTO attorneys are then published for opposiion [sic]. Any party that believes the mark should not register can bring an opposition proceeding. "So, I believe what that means is that those 3 marks (all filed after Cisco's) WERE approved by the USPTO attorneys and then WERE published for opposition, to which Cisco DID NOT oppose.>> They only need to enforce it when people are actually using it.You know that for a fact? So it's OK for a trademark holder to not contest USPTO's decision to grant a trademark of the same name (albeit different service) to another company so long as an actual product with that name hasn't yet made it to the market? I don't know... I'm not a lawyer so I won't claim to know better than you, but unless you're an IPR lawyer, I see no reason to trust you, either.>>broommetteRead above. And I'm so much less inclined to take your word for it when you who can't even spell ONLY correctly while in caps. That's just too pathetic.
I bet if the iPhone from Apple cost $199, and you could choose your own carrier, there would be a lot more pro Apple opinions expressed here. People are a lot more likely toknock a product that they will definitely never buy.
I bet if Apple didn't think they were either bigger than the law or that the whatever this lawsuit and the resulting agreement (assuming there is one) will cost them far less than the value of the hype being generated by using the name and the resulting news.Perhaps they should just name it iHype.
<a class="user" href="http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html">http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html</a>Read what cisco has to say and think again. How do you think would Apple react if some other company would introduce a new product and name it iPod? Apple is known for its aggressiveness, there's really no point of arguing here. cisco just had to do what Apple would have done too.And all the people who say that cisco bought the name iPhone just to make money out of that should start reading those damn articles. Digg comments nowadays are so crappy because people just read the headline and before even reading the whole story they start to comment. That's just sad. Subtracting all the s**tty comments from digg would make talking about the stories here so much more enjoyable.
Honestly, I've read a lot of dumb things on digg, but you people who think cisco is an IP squatting company really take the cake. Apple didn't invent the i* name, the iPhone was registered before apple released an iAnything... so what were they squatting exactly? And you're aware that Cisco is one of the most respected and successful technology companies in the world? They actually produce a phone called the iPhone that leverages their existing consumer and business network products?If you read the article, you'll see that apple spent 6 years trying to get this name, right around the time they started naming things iAnything. You'll notice that Cisco negotiated in good faith up until the last minute, when they granted Apple a pass to announce it as the iPhone, if they finished the contract by the end of business that day.Apple took this good faith, announced their product, then backed out on negotiations.Sounds kind of like their dealings with Creative - where they worked with creative on the original ipod, saw creatives menu design ideas, then walked away from the negotiating table. A few months later, Apple releases the iPod... with creative's menu system!Just b/c you like a company's product, and they release them in many pretty colors, doesn't mean they're not thieving douchebags.But here you are claiming that Cisco got into the networking business to eventually release a leveraged phone called the iPhone -- JUST SO THEY CAN SUE APPLE. brilliant.
Has everyone here seen the iPhone Wars website? It's about 4 days old now. I've been watching it grow and expand everyday. (Some funny links to other iPhone sites they're developing.) Nice little site, a bit amateur but turning into a fun place to find the skinny on the iPhone. The online message forum (though new) is Pro Cisco on this debate. Check it out. www.iphonewars.com
rawheadrexJan 11, 2007
>>blapierreWell, the other three "live" trademarks aren't trademarks that other companies are "trying" to register the mark but that they are already registered and viable. From the USPTO FAQ:"A live trademark registration means that the registrant has filed all necessary maintenance documents and the trademark remains viable"<a class="user" href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/transcriptst_z.htm">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/transcriptst_z.htm</a>And if you read further:"However, remember that marks approved by the USPTO attorneys are then published for opposiion [sic]. Any party that believes the mark should not register can bring an opposition proceeding. "So, I believe what that means is that those 3 marks (all filed after Cisco's) WERE approved by the USPTO attorneys and then WERE published for opposition, to which Cisco DID NOT oppose.>> They only need to enforce it when people are actually using it.You know that for a fact? So it's OK for a trademark holder to not contest USPTO's decision to grant a trademark of the same name (albeit different service) to another company so long as an actual product with that name hasn't yet made it to the market? I don't know... I'm not a lawyer so I won't claim to know better than you, but unless you're an IPR lawyer, I see no reason to trust you, either.>>broommetteRead above. And I'm so much less inclined to take your word for it when you who can't even spell ONLY correctly while in caps. That's just too pathetic.
sv650touringJan 11, 2007
I bet if the iPhone from Apple cost $199, and you could choose your own carrier, there would be a lot more pro Apple opinions expressed here. People are a lot more likely toknock a product that they will definitely never buy.
Closed AccountJan 11, 2007
I bet if Apple didn't think they were either bigger than the law or that the whatever this lawsuit and the resulting agreement (assuming there is one) will cost them far less than the value of the hype being generated by using the name and the resulting news.Perhaps they should just name it iHype.
voodixJan 11, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html">http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html</a>Read what cisco has to say and think again. How do you think would Apple react if some other company would introduce a new product and name it iPod? Apple is known for its aggressiveness, there's really no point of arguing here. cisco just had to do what Apple would have done too.And all the people who say that cisco bought the name iPhone just to make money out of that should start reading those damn articles. Digg comments nowadays are so crappy because people just read the headline and before even reading the whole story they start to comment. That's just sad. Subtracting all the s**tty comments from digg would make talking about the stories here so much more enjoyable.
norcimJan 11, 2007
dup
g3buzJan 12, 2007
Honestly, I've read a lot of dumb things on digg, but you people who think cisco is an IP squatting company really take the cake. Apple didn't invent the i* name, the iPhone was registered before apple released an iAnything... so what were they squatting exactly? And you're aware that Cisco is one of the most respected and successful technology companies in the world? They actually produce a phone called the iPhone that leverages their existing consumer and business network products?If you read the article, you'll see that apple spent 6 years trying to get this name, right around the time they started naming things iAnything. You'll notice that Cisco negotiated in good faith up until the last minute, when they granted Apple a pass to announce it as the iPhone, if they finished the contract by the end of business that day.Apple took this good faith, announced their product, then backed out on negotiations.Sounds kind of like their dealings with Creative - where they worked with creative on the original ipod, saw creatives menu design ideas, then walked away from the negotiating table. A few months later, Apple releases the iPod... with creative's menu system!Just b/c you like a company's product, and they release them in many pretty colors, doesn't mean they're not thieving douchebags.But here you are claiming that Cisco got into the networking business to eventually release a leveraged phone called the iPhone -- JUST SO THEY CAN SUE APPLE. brilliant.
semanniamodJan 16, 2007
Has everyone here seen the iPhone Wars website? It's about 4 days old now. I've been watching it grow and expand everyday. (Some funny links to other iPhone sites they're developing.) Nice little site, a bit amateur but turning into a fun place to find the skinny on the iPhone. The online message forum (though new) is Pro Cisco on this debate. Check it out. www.iphonewars.com
laffatinterwebApr 17, 2008
wow how about iTalk