What is Digg?120 Comments
- autodata, on 10/12/2007, -25/+115Actually, slkuhn, that's exactly how they work. Failure to use a trademark results in abandonment of the trademark.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+75I believe this is the full page ad http://i.cmpnet.com/informationweek/blog/iphone_ad_lg.jpg
The link in the story is just to an article/editorial graphic making reference to the ad. - dmoney06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33retro look is a pro?
- ikrit2006, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35http://www.amazon.com/Linksys-iPhone-WIP330-Wireless-802-11g/dp/B000FQ2O8U/sr=1-3/qid=1170551500/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/002-4307402-8563205?ie=UTF8&s=pc
Date first available at Amazon.com: October 23, 2006
Even if they didn't use it in a timely manner when they first got the trademark, they still released the phone afaik before Apple even hinted at an iPhone... I think Apple loses this battle. - allenu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21So where's the ad? This ain't it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
Cisco screwed up. In a big, stupid way. Look at the photo they submitted with their Declaration of Use. It's packaging for one of their phones with an "iPhoto" sticker on the outside of the wrapper. They've already lost the case. Now they're hoping to win in the Court of Public Opinion, but it's not going to work no matter how many ads they take out whining about it. - DansnBear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Actually, the lawsuit you are referring to had nothing to do with that ad. Apparently you didn't even read the article you linked too. The lawsuit had to do with a different commercial byApple. To quote your source: "The lawsuit claims that Apple, in a television ad for its iTunes pay-per-download music store aired on MTV last year, featured a young boy with an iPod portable music player singing the lyrics to "Lose Yourself," the theme song for his hit movie 8 Mile released in 2003." The commercial in question contained different people singing along to music playing on their iPod. Less than one line of each song was used, as Apple claimed was fair usage. No music was played along with them. The commercial that you link to on YouTube is a real apple ad, and actually has the real Eminem. Obviously he gave full permission if he is the one staring in the commercial. . .
- jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Ruh' Roh!
- managizzle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18That looks like an article graphic, not an ad......
- tagliare, on 10/12/2007, -18/+33@ikrit2006
See:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=314
Please, Cisco slapped the iPhone name onto their products just as news began to leak that the Apple's iPhone was about to be announced. - Pronoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I believe that is from the NY Post and editorial not an ad.
- tabledesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I don't believe the link actually takes you to the said ad... I don't know what it is that we're being linked to.
- ijeff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Dansnbear is right, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL1KcG4bOjo is the ad they're referring to in the article.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"I have bought multiple CIT-200's and they do in fact have the iPhone logo on them but they are not stickers they are actually ON the box and have been for quite some time.....I think whoever sent in that picture probably faked it....."
What you are saying doesn't exactly jive with this...
"In fact, this seems to be true since the Linksys CIT200 and the Linksys CIT310, (both of which I reviewed) are now called the iPhone and were only recently renamed on December 18th."
"The PDF manuals still reference the old name, such as this manual for the CIT200 and I couldn't find a single reference to the word "iPhone" in the manual even though I see "iPhone®" with the registered trademark throughout their website. I guess they missed that. Time to re-print/convert those PDFs!"
Now, if by "some time" you mean since mid december then you are right. However, that is past the deadline which was 11/16/2005.
source: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236 - surasshu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This digg is a cocktease. Show me the ad or GTFO.
And if that's really the ad, then I'm thoroughly disappointed. I want some REAL warfare--some "Nintendon't", some "Macdonalds burgers 20% smaller than Burger King's". C'mon, draw blood! - EndofEternity, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18@jodokast
It doesn't matter if Cisco released an iPhone powered by pigeons. It's their ***** trademark. They released their product before Apple.
Apple is not god, they can't even be considered a pro-end user company, why does everyone on digg defend them so much no matter what they do. They are just as bad as MS, if Apple was in MS position they would do everything to make users dtop using non-apple alternatives. - austicious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7AMozza13 linked the actual ad above:
http://i.cmpnet.com/informationweek/blog/iphone_ad_lg.jpg - lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8That's fantastic, no one could care less about your cisco stock.
Now, I highly doubt they're trying to be racist in the ad, if anything I wouldn't be surprised if you're some racist bigot :)
Edit: beat to it :) - dpknc84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You've gotta be kidding right?
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Even if they didn't use it in a timely manner when they first got the trademark, they still released the phone afaik before Apple even hinted at an iPhone... I think Apple loses this battle."
The key part you are missing is that there is a waiting line for tradmarks and if a company lets it expire then it goes to the next company on the list. That next company on the list appears to be owned by Apple. So the question is did Cisco let it expire. The information I have seen appears to point to "yes". - fanboydcs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17RadiantBeing,
not true, that was eminem, he gave rights to it to promote his album on itunes, not to promote iPods...
So that is why apple changed the words at the end of that commercial to fix that. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Linksys routers sell to non techy people because they are sold in Wal-Mart.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -30/+35Apple gets too arrogant every now and then. This reminds me of their iPod commercial showing someone bearing a vague resemblance to Eminem performing "Lose Yourself." (When I first saw the commercial, I did think it was Eminem) The problem was, Eminem never gave permission for any of it. He sued Apple and the case was settled out of court.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-02-24-eminem-apple-mtv_x.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ThEI-WhsY - ibnabouna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This advertisement is most likely the result of Cisco's legal team trying to satisfy certain legal criteria to show a court--if this matter even goes to court--at a future time that they are entitled to this trademark. It's as simple as that.
The advertisement itself is of little significance to consumers. In fact, I personally believe it benefits Apple more than Cisco. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Yeah, that's why Linksys routers are far and away the best selling consumer routers out there."
Chances are it's because they are so pervasive and as such are stocked everywhere and cheap as hell.
"Me. I like simplicity"
Considering simplicity is Apple's raison d'etre, and my linksys router's software is so crap that so many other people have taken a stab at producing OSS for it, i'd say it's a close call. You can have a very feature limited gadget and still make it hard to use - think early mp3 players.
Anyway, why are you talking about an absence of features when the parent said 'retro look'? The look is the appearance of the phone, not what features it contains, and the linksys doesn't hold a candle to the Apple.
"Well considering that Cisco's market cap is $164B and Apple's is less than half at only $73B, I will assume you mean that Cisco is the Lambo. So yeah, I'll take the Lambo."
Again, what made up point are you arguing here? Noone mentioned the companies involved. The comparison was of the two phones, not who made them. It's painfully clear which is the better device here, cost notwithstanding.
"Cisco has the trademark, and Apple is just trying to steal it. Pure and simple."
Cisco sat on the trademark for years and years and then suddenly rush released an 'iPhone' to steal thunder away from the Apple keynote. It's a pathetic marketing tactic to get them free advertising, or a mistaken purchase, on a phone which is just a re-branded run of the mill gadget. Hell, even the website has pictures of the iPhone where the logo has been photoshopped into the picture! Like i said, pathetic.
"They should have offered Cisco a fair price for the name, not just try to take it. Even if they happen to get it on a technicality, that doesn't make it right. Theft, whether sancitoned by the courts or not, is wrong."
Apple were in talks but then linksys decided to only let them have the name if they made the two products compatible. It's like linksys wants to sit next to the cool kid in class so his classmates might like him. Once again, pathetic, but then it is big business i supose.
"think for yourself"
Agreed. - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The cisco one really does look like crap.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow, CLIFFosakaJAPAN, not only do you fraudulently promote all your stories to the front page, you purposely deceive those unfortunate enough to click your worthless articles. This is not an ad, and not an attack.
- geniusNOTatWORK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4this was an ad to buy Apple's iPhone, right? Because that thing on the right looks like a piece of *****...
- cvstageman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Somehow, I'm not sure that the general public is aware enough (and cares) for this ad to be successful. Unless I'm missing the point.
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Everyone on digg is a trademark expert, interesting.
- gabogab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Cisco only used the name when it became apparent that the name would be a way to extract money from Apple. Unfortunately for them, they seem to have lost the trademark (they tried to renew the trademark using a old product with a "iPhone" sticker on it. Trademark experts agree that they may have lost it.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
It is actually not true that "Even if they didn't use it in a timely manner when they first got the trademark, they still released the phone afaik before Apple even hinted at an iPhone... I think Apple loses this battle." as jman8888 said, because if they lost it, then other companies that have filed for the trademark will acquire it. - jwdav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Alan Graham at zdnet pretty much shreds Ciscos case ...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=314 - manfrin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13A meeting at Cisco, June 2000:
"Guys, there is a company with a trademark on 'iPhone'. In my crystal ball I have seen that Apple, seven years from now, will release a phone with this name. Let's buy this company and wait 7 years so we can sue them!!"
Wait... that never happened.
PS: You're an idiot. - tagliare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Um... this is some graphic from the NY Post, where's the full page NY Times ad? Marked as lame.
- halter73, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@theblooms
"Well considering that Cisco's market cap is $164B and Apple's is less than half at only $73B, I will assume you mean that Cisco is the Lambo. So yeah, I'll take the Lambo."
Thanks for the smart-ass comment. Companies are not being compared here, their products are. According to yahoo finance Audi (the owner of the Lamborghini brand) has a market cap of 9.31 billion euros and Honda has a market cap of 139.48 billion US dollars. $139.48 billion > €9.31 billion. However I'd still take the Lambo from Audi. - Socolco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Regardless of the trademark issue Cisco is getting exposure off this. Nobody heard of or cared about their iPhone product.
- kotatsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'm just amazed a big company like Cisco would do something as frankly childish and amateurish as to buy a 'me too' 'i' trademark and then bring out a spoiler product just ahead of Apple's launch. I mean come on, are they 12 years old or something? It's laughable.
They should spend their money on developing products that are even half as desirable or innovative as Apple does, and less on ripping off other company's names. - lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Cisco could drive apple into the ground with lawsuits, if apple wins it's cause Cisco decides they don't care (unlikely)
- clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That was pretty disturbing.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Too bad they failed to use it.
See this: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/skype/linksys-cit200-skype-phone-review.asp
It is a review of the infamous Cisco iPhone one month before Cisco's trademark would expire without proof of use. It wasn't officially an iPhone until December 2006. OOOOPS!
I like this quote: "A search of product reviews of the CIT200 shows no mention of the word iPhone [1]. The first mention appeared in December 2006 when Cisco unveiled a series of new products bearing the iPhone name."
And here's some fun reading about Cisco's new iPhone, which again was released over a year after their trademark expired due to failed proof of use (a sticker on a box):
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/greg-galitzine/voip/iphone-linksys-voip-not-apple-cell.html - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is about phones, not MP3 players.
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...Cisco didn't take that picture. Sue the magazine, and grow some brains while you're at it.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3innaccurate
"Photo: Cisco's Full Page Ad in NY Times Attacks Apple's iPhone Name Usage"
The photo linked to is NOT of the Cisco ad. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3WRONG! The Cisco 7940 and 7960 are IP phones for corporate and large business', i.e. universities and such, use they are a replacment for a PBX based tlelphone system, as they are much cheaper to use since most large corps already have the network in place......their is much equipmet behind the scenes on the 7940 and 7960 and they are not called Iphones in any way, form or fashion.........
iphone --- http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Promotion_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1165633316758&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper
IP phones - http://cisco.com/pcgi-bin/search/search.pl?searchPhrase=IP+phone&accessLevel=Guest&language=en&country=US&Search+All+Cisco.com=cisco.com
Get it? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Er, I meant 'iPhone'...damn long list of Apple i-something products makes my head hurt sometimes. ;-)
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought it was kind of funny that they put the Linksys brand as a "Pro".
- Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not to mention that the iPhone was trademarked before the iMac. If it wasn't for that, you'd have something resembling a good point.
- cornsyrup87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3haha people are digging you down...
You may be the only one in here who realizes how pointless all of this is.
Has anyone seriously thought about how bad their emotional attachment is to companies and the prouducts they make? Will any of this matter in 10 years? - EzarKun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Its not Cisco's fault Apple for some unexplained reason like placing an 'i' before every product of theirs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hooray for failed products and the valiant defense of their names long after the entire tech world has forgotten it even exists.
Next thing you know someone will defend the trademark for Studebaker or the Yugo. -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
