digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

UPDATE on Cisco's iPhone Trademark: Cisco Responds

blogs.cisco.com — Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, on Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark. "Most importantly, this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement."

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 11, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

157 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • groverblue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+101I have to say that's a very well thought out response, and I can understand Cisco motives. Too bad Apple isn't considering this with the urgency that Cisco is.

    I'm sure Cisco was hoping to nail down a business deal that would allow both companies to share a certain product designs, like an Apple branded Cisco firewall, etc. It would be nice if Cisco and Apple released some cool products together.
  • kwago, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63I agree, they make suing sound so casual and respectful.
  • radu79, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Ironic how Apple is so into the 'we protect our trademarks, even if we are wrong', but when some other company is doing the same Apple has a totally different standard.
  • mccarron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Apple has already replied to the Cisco suit earlier this morning. IANAL, but Apple is basically claiming that since Cisco didn't enforce their Trademark on other related products, they can't force their hand on Apple to not use it as well.

    Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris, From: http://news.com.com/Cisco+sues+Apple+over+use+of+iPhone+trademark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html?tag=nefd.lede

    "We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best. There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products. We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."

    This same thing happened when both digg and Apple had to go out against websites using their trademark, to prevent them from losing the trademark. Cisco I guess didn't do this with iPhone.

    Article on Trademark Loss:
    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6

    More info found on this TUAW post: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/11/cisco-v-apple-ii-am-followup-on-trademark-lawsuit/
  • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38"Apple branded Cisco firewall"... Are you on crack?
  • NimWit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34I am going to start trademarking every word with an "i" in front of it. You want to use my iToliet? That will be 10 iDollars please.
  • PGvildys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26This just makes sense. This is not a "stupid" lawsuit at all. If a company doesn't protect it's copyrights or trademarks, it will lose them.
  • babymitch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29"How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street."
  • ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Wow... "silly" suit ey? That makes your case sound that much stronger. Someone needs to speak to her about her PR. I'd like her to see just how silly it is when this goes to trial.
  • eleven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Wow the was a friendly press release about a lawsuit. Seems Cisco was really trying to work with Apple on this one - or that is what they want us to believe. Now it's back in Apple's court I guess. Perhaps it'll be a friendly war of High-tech titans – not.
  • Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Seems that the iPhone name existed before Apple started off with the iProduct naming scheme. There's already a product called the iphone that has existed for years. Seems like Apple has no case.

    ""Apple branded Cisco firewall"... Are you on crack?"

    Would be nice. Consider that Cisco sells $60 routers (Linksys brand) that has actual functionality, and Apple sells overpriced $200+ routers (Airport brand) that have limitations on the number of connections.
  • daller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I really understand cisco here. Apple will sue anyone looking at their trademarks and when they almost got cisco to agree on a deal and they do like that. I really love the Apple products but not always the Apple way.
  • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23iGet it
  • HNIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19whiskeymb, did you even RTFA?

    The iMAC was released in 98. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac
    The iPhone was release in 96.
  • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22@chicbicyclist
    "This has "publicity stunt" written all over it. Cisco knows iPhone is synonymous with Apple."

    ...because Apple's iPhone has been out an entire week.

    1) Make stuff up
    2) attribute knowledge of this to Cisco (Cisco knows blah blah...)
    3) post on digg
    4)
  • mraustin1337, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I'd need to get the other side of the story but it sounds to me like Apple was pretty ***** in doing this...

    They act like they are willing to cooperate and then just drop it and ignore Cisco's Trademark. That is bad business in my opinion. What's worse is they could have waited a few months and then people could have bought it when it was announced.

    I hope Cisco gets a good amount of money out of Apple. They deserve it.
  • catchneyez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Hey whiskeymb, go back and read the article. It said they filed that patent back in 1996. I don't think I saw anyone doing the Macarena while listening to an iPod back then.

    ~Yea, go look it up. That was a 1996 song~
  • reknaps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Wow. Im siding with Cisco on this one.... surprising actually.
    Apple is usually associated with high standards, high quality, and high dignity so to say. This tarnishes that image just a little bit.
    I definitely want to see Apple's response.
  • radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@sirius889
    Could it be because TV is not trademarked by anyone?
    It doesn't matter if you have a different logo so lon as you use the same name (or sequence of letters in this case).
    If I make an OS and rename it: "Radu's Apple OSX" that doesn't mean I am not infringing on Apple's trademark.
  • leopardhunter, on 02/18/2009, -0/+11This is a summary. Apologies if too redundant.

    Cisco owns a registered trademark on iPhone. They have products in the marketplace called "iPhone" and have for some time.

    Apple negotiated with Cisco for the right to share the iPhone brand.

    The negotiations broke down, not over royalties or money changing hands. Cisco wanted interoperability with Apple's "iPhone" with Cisco's products. Apparently Apple refused.

    Cisco is a market leader in many areas, such as networking.

    Apple did not finalize the deal with Cisco before Apple's "iPhone" announcement.

    During Apple's "iPhone" announcement, Steve Jobs got on stage and talked about Apple's 200 patents on their new technologies. Jobs said that Apple would aggressively enforce its intellectual patent rights. Jobs said that Apple's new product would be called "iPhone."

    Cisco is sitting there, wondering what Apple is thinking. Do they want a deal or not? Is Apple trying to pull a fast one? What's going on? Cisco sues Apple.

    So far this looks like Apple's Greek tragedy. How hubristic of Jobs to prattle on about his company's intellectual property rights, when Apple was not acting responsibly with regard to Cisco. On top of all that, the only breakdown in negotiations occurred with regard to open systems.

    All Apple had to do was just open up the iPhone to work with Cisco. Whatever thin gruel Apple gained by forgoing this opportunity, it has lost much more by opening itself up to Cisco's lawsuit.

    The Apple iPhone had the promise to be Apple's third major platform after the Apple II and the Mac. And now, with the refusal to release a public SDK, with the refusal to simply name the CPU, with the subsequent admission that the "iPhone" won't run a full-strength copy of OS X when Jobs had implied that it would, with the exclusive deal with Cingular, when coupled with the trademark fiasco, the lawsuit, and the apparent closed nature of the "iPhone," it appears that the newly christened "Apple, Inc." has sailed into some very rough waters indeed.
  • ChefGroovy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Apple people have to pay 200$ for a router? oh my god! No wonder they so sensitive about things

  • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14At the iToiletpaper Store, you can find over 2 million different papers, textures, and patterns to choose from. Only $1 a sheet.

    Terms and Conditions of the iToiletpaper Store: You may only authorize one ass per account. If you should lose the iToiletpaper, even before you use it, you must re-buy all of the product again even if we have a record of all iPaper you have purchased. You may not share iToiletpaper with any third party. Attempts to reverse-engineer iToiletpaper will result in cancellation of your iToiletpaper Store account and possible legal action. You may not use iToiletpaper with a competitor's iToilet. We reserve the right to revoke your iToiletpaper wiping abilities at any time via our TRM (Toilet Rights Management) system.
  • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Sorry, what? Oh, you want to wipe your iAss? Here is some iToilet-Paper. Don't forget to put down the iToilet iSeat and wash your hands in the iSink. Of course the iSink is connected, it has a direct pipe to iWater from the iCity.

    iJust want to iPuke with all this *****.
  • eleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Except the www.apple.com now has an "iPhone" tab at the top. I think they thought the deal was all but sealed.
  • diggik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6For what it's worth, Apple hasn't sold this product yet. So, for the time being, there probably cannot be any damages. % of the market? Zero.
  • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Zero would imply there is none. And we all saw Jobs using one. ;-)
  • eleven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well considering the source I think it's pretty much a press release. It was written by Cisco's SVP and General Counsel on behalf of the company - might say blog but in this case I don't think it's much different.
  • adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8iM sick of it.
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And that's the point. Cisco hasn't been aggressive in defending the iPhone trademark. (Multiple VoIP clients apparently use the same name)
  • falltime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I love the HYPOCRICY of corporate America - The consumer is a CRIMINAL for violating intellectual property laws by copying media, etc.... (and BTW that includes 'dead' media like software, games, books etc... that are no longer distributed) but Apple feels free to blatently ignore IP rules and wait for the lawsuit.
    Amazing
  • CdnPhoto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apple has an opportunity here. If they work with CISCO, they can come up with a solution that would provide VoIP service within the corporate envirionment and mobile outside. Cisco would sell the VoIP servers and Apple the iPhone. Expending on this, Cisco could also work out a way to get access to the corporate e-mails.

    If played correctly, the could be what Apple has needed to get into the corporate environment.

    APPLE! Play nice. Cisco can be your friend.

    (I'm an Apple fan, but on this one I have to side with Cisco)
  • irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Trademarks, yes. Copyrights, no.

    Trademarks are distinctive and identifiable elements associated with a person, product or company (names, logos, slogans, etc). Those remain the property of the owner in perpetuity, unless they become diluted to the point where the use of the trademark is generic enough that it's no longer specifically associated with its rightful owner. Kleenex and Xerox both have to vigorously defend their names to prevent them from becoming generic. ("cellophane," "bikini," "escalator" and "dry ice" used to be protected trademarks)

    Copyrights however are by design time-limited. A copyright covers a single expression of an idea or piece of art. In this case, it would cover the design of the iPhone, irrespective of its name. The exclusive "right to copy" exists until its creator days, plus 70 or so years (in the U.S.). Whether or not the owner does anything with it is irrelevant; the owner owns it even if they don't do anything with it.
  • haloguy628, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So do you think that finally now people will see that Steve Jobs is just as bad as Bill Gates? For years Gates was villanized due to his and MS success. Now with Apple trying to break into consumer electronics business and dominate it, the same will happen to Jobs? Poetic justice anyone?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Past and future earnings, plus cost.
  • FotoMalo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Everybody keeps saying that Cisco hasn't enforced the iPhone name. How do you people know that? Did they reach agreements with these other companies to use that brand name for there products? I bet they did as that is not information presented to the public.

    They said they didn't want money out of this. They simply wanted integration of technology ( maybe with there CM product line ).

  • bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Apple is usually associated with high standards, high quality, and high dignity so to say."

    Like suing their own fan blogs?
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9i got 599 reasons why. and 2 years to give them all to you.
  • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Cisco came out with the iPhone patent in 1996, before even the iMac. This is an open and shut case. Apple is going to have to pay an assload of royalties or end up making Cisco a partner in the deal. Apple really should have settled this case before-hand rather than outright stealing Cisco's product name.
  • jorgefeucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As far as business practices go, yes they both are probable just as ruthless, Jobs is just a better spin doctor. But in the end, Gates has donated billions of his dollars to promote education and other charitable causes, I can't recall ever hearing Jobs do anything like that, you judge who the better human being is.
  • tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok Cisco will settle for iPhones a few month early ;)
  • Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And to think... i used to like Apple :( They've just turned really nasty lately.
  • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow! Is Apple shady or what?

    They've been in talks with Cisco -since 2001- about obtaining the iPhone trademark from them. I'm willing to bet the talks have been even more just recently. Cisco (a company that is worth twice as much as Apple) doesn't give them permission, but Apple straight up disrespects that and announces a product with another company's trademark and then proceed to claim that Cisco can't sue because "they haven't enforced the trademark."

    Imagine if it Apple = Microsoft in this case and Cisco = Apple. The fanboys would be flaming Microsoft.

    I have no respect for a company that wants to play dirty like this.
  • danandre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not likely.

    The amount of money it takes to rebrand iPhone to something else is too costly.
    Apple have gotten free advertisement worth billions over the past year and of course with the MacWord keynotes being covered by almost all the major news networks in the world, and it all focused on the "iPhone" name tag.
    I'm guessing they'll reach an agreement sooner or later.
  • Boofster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Very cool response from Cisco. Apple should stop being so arrogant and take care of important issues like this.

    +1 for Apple being EMO.
  • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4ummm. they have iLawyers in their payroll full time. we are not talking about a mom and pop's co. here
  • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.

    "There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products," Kerris said. "We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."
    ---

    This coming from the company that sues people for using the word "pod" in products totally unrelated to portable music players. Apple employs some really stupid people.

    Name another company with a product called "iPhone"?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They have had a product called iPhone for 7 years now. How about you wake up and RTFA. Hell, there was a post on Digg recently that had a side by side comparison of the two devices.
  • Firemeboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A friend of mine and I were discussing this law suit, and Steve Jobs' presentation was goign on in the background. At a lull in the conversation, Steve said, "We have over 200 patents, and we plan on protecting them."

    We both had a chuckle.
  • tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you like using digg don't spam.
  • one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Im honestly hoping for a Cisco victory here. Apple is being rather arrogant towards a rather well off and large company. Its not as if I hold the trademark and cant put up a fight. Cisco is probably just pissed on how Apple simply blew the off....
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 157 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.