Cisco Sues Apple Over Use of iPhone Name
Posted by Sicarius on 10 January 2007 - 23:48 · 69 comments & 12152 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Sicarius
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
SicariusContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by bangbang023 on 10 Jan 2007 - 23:50
- Can't see anything wrong with this one. Seems pretty common sense and is something Apple should have thought about more closely.
-
#1.1 Posted by Slimy on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:08
- I wouldn't be surprised if their objective was to get some more press coverage
-
#1.2 Posted by Swordnyx on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:26
- Exactly. Remember there was an older post about this?I knew Apple was going to get sued when I first heard Jobs announce it.
-
#1.3 Posted by ninjakarl on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:29
- I was under the impression that Apple and Linksys had an agreement of some sort. That's atleast what it said on the iPhone wiki page
-
#1.4 Posted by Pc_Madness on 11 Jan 2007 - 01:38
- Quote - (ninjakarl said @ #1.3)I was under the impression that Apple and Linksys had an agreement of some sort. That's atleast what it said on the iPhone wiki page
Indeed, wtf are these guys doing? -
#1.5 Posted by Hurmoth on 11 Jan 2007 - 03:46
- Quote - (ninjakarl said @ #1.3)I was under the impression that Apple and Linksys had an agreement of some sort. That's atleast what it said on the iPhone wiki pageThey were in talks, but no one had officially signed anything, that was prior to Apple announcing the iPhone. Because Apple went ahead and announced the iPhone before officially agreeing to any agreement with Cisco.
I think Cisco has ever right to sue Apple if Apple was arrogant enough to go ahead and announce the iPhone without Cisco's final consent.
-
#3 Posted by daveoc64 on 10 Jan 2007 - 23:52
- Seeing as the product hasn't been introduced (or gone through the FCC yet), I wonder if Apple could dodge any legal issues by calling it something else.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by MrCobra on 10 Jan 2007 - 23:54
- You can bet that is someone used one of thier trademarks (and it's happened) that Apple would be all sue happy to stop it. I for one hope Apple looses this.
-
#4.1 Posted by Shiranui on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:55
- And what exactly would loosening it achieve?.... YFM!
-
#4.2 Posted by +rm20010 on 11 Jan 2007 - 04:37
- Anyone remember the Profit Pod?
-
#5 Posted by CoLdFuSi0n on 10 Jan 2007 - 23:57
- hahahaha you got owned now apple.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by hotdog963al on 10 Jan 2007 - 23:57
- WOW that was totally unexpected - NOT!
-
#7 Posted by dissonation on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:03
- Perhapse apple thought it would be cheaper and easier to go through the courts than reach an agreement with cisco?
-
(4 replies)
#8 Posted by xpablo on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:07
- LOL , I was looking a Skype phones from Linksys last week and noticed the iPhone brand from Linksys/Cisco , then was think about the rumors of Apple and their to be released iPhone product.
In My opinion Cisco purposely took that name, so Apple couldn't use.
But I guess Apple didn't protect that name first.
I hope Cisco wins I like Mac's but not nessecarily iPod or Apple iPod's are evil little money sucking machines
designed to make the RIAA & Steve Jobs rich and you poor.
I am a Cisco fan, Cisco makes me money since I install & configure Cisco networking equipment everyday for work :/ -
#8.1 Posted by evo_spook on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:12
- last time I checked, you wasn't forced to buy a ipod
-
#8.2 Posted by osirisX on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:17
- Cisco acquired the name from purchasing Linksys. Hardly Cisco taking the name so Apple couldn't use it. And how is the iPod a little money sucking machine. You don't have to buy one. You don't have to buy from iTunes. You don't even have to buy a Mac to use one. It does make Steve Jobs richer but not the RIAA. The RIAA would love for Apple to push the iTunes Store prices up but Apple wont do it.
-
#8.3 Posted by PsychoDoughBoy on 11 Jan 2007 - 02:44
- Quote - (xpablo said @ #
...iPod's are evil little money sucking machines
designed to make the RIAA & Steve Jobs rich and you poor.
Welcome to today's consumerist society!
-
#9 Posted by +PiracyX on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:08
- HAHA comic stuff from Apple, you make me laugh! i hope they get fined pretty bad for this,
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by JoeC on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:08
- They must have thought it through carefully, and reckon they'll get off better than if they continued talking with Cisco. Methinks they're one step ahead of the average person who replies to news items.
-
#10.1 Posted by alsheron on 11 Jan 2007 - 09:12
- Exactamundo!
Trust me, you should because I know.
Apple have pre-planned this. Anyone who guesses otherwise is very comfortably wrong and should STFU.
-
(7 replies)
#11 Posted by obsolete_power on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:10
- Aaaaaaand this is why Cisco blows the big one!
-
#11.1 Posted by MrCobra on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:14
- Aaaaaaand Apple has been doing this for years and years.
-
#11.3 Posted by neufuse on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:18
- Quote - (obsolete_power said @ #11)Aaaaaaand this is why Cisco blows the big one!
Cisco blows because they have the name first?
get real -
#11.4 Posted by matt74441 on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:20
- Ya, how the hell is Cisco at fault here? They had the name first, Apple didn't seem to care, so Cisco has the right to go and sue them. I have nothing against Apple, but that was a bone-headed move on their part and I hope they lose.
-
#11.5 Posted by evo_spook on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:22
- Quote - (matt74441 said @ #11.4)Ya, how the hell is Cisco at fault here? They had the name first, Apple didn't seem to care, so Cisco has the right to go and sue them. I have nothing against Apple, but that was a bone-headed move on their part and I hope they lose.
hmmm if they didn't care, then why did was they negotiating? -
#11.6 Posted by hagjohn on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:52
- Quote - (evo_spook said @ #11.5)hmmm if they didn't care, then why did was they negotiating?
-
(3 replies)
#12 Posted by Spartan_X on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:16
- iPhone is not the only thing Apple has "browed" from other companies... take a look at this video...
and thats not all, there's about 6 different patents I can recall ATM developed at MS Research that are quite "similar" to what Apple showed at its keynote... you can expect more llawsuits down the line...
-
#12.1 Posted by evo_spook on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:18
- I doubt it, try checking out multiple OSX and Vista videos, theres a lot more that MS has knicked then vica versa
-
#12.2 Posted by +Shadowdruid on 11 Jan 2007 - 05:05
- Quote - (evo_spook said @ #12.1)I doubt it, try checking out multiple OSX and Vista videos, theres a lot more that MS has knicked then vica versa
Care to explain? Oh let me see...
Gadgets? Sorry those weren't invented by apple
Sidebar? Nor was that...
Vienna has been in development since 1999, at least some of its technologies, and most of those techs have made it into Vista.
So really, Apple has copied more from MS than the other way around. -
#12.3 Posted by Chad on 11 Jan 2007 - 13:00
- Quote - (Shadowdruid said @ #12.2)Quote - (evo_spook said @ #12.1)I doubt it, try checking out multiple OSX and Vista videos, theres a lot more that MS has knicked then vica versa
Care to explain? Oh let me see...
Gadgets? Sorry those weren't invented by apple
Sidebar? Nor was that...
Vienna has been in development since 1999, at least some of its technologies, and most of those techs have made it into Vista.
So really, Apple has copied more from MS than the other way around.
I fail to see where there is anything regarding OS X or Windows in the news story. Keep your Apple vs Windows discussion out.
-
#13 Posted by neufuse on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:18
- I thought apple was in negotiations with Cisco over this? If you're in negotations and the product hasn't been released yet how do you sue? just seems dumb to me...
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by DClark on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:18
- The iPhone trademark existed long before iPods became popular, so I doubt there is any premeditated motive behind the acquisition of such a trademark by InfoGear Technology Corp. Hey you Apple...Hahaha...charade you are! Trying to keep our feelings off the street! You are merely a treat, but really are a cry!
-
#15 Posted by DClark on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:25
- It makes sense. People are complaining that Cisco (or in better terms Infogear/Linksys) purposely trademarked "iPhone" just to pee Apple off, when in fact it is the other way around. The iPhone trademark existed since 1997 (not 2000 like this article indicates), before the "i" concept was adopted by Apple Inc. (the iMac I believe was the first to use the "i" concept since 199.
-
#16 Posted by DClark on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:25
- 1998...smiley face error. Unless you meant that my Pink Floyd references didn't make sense.
-
#17 Posted by +TheGriffin on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:27
- Moronic Apple, go Cisco.
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by Elite_graphix on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:28
- i guess this isnt one of the amazing 150 patents apple placed over the iphone
-
#18.1 Posted by +TCLN Ryster on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:48
- Patents != Trademarks
-
#19 Posted by digitalsoft on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:29
- Whey to cisco
-
#20 Posted by nostrad on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:41
- Expected, widely predicted and now happening.
This will be fun to watch.
-
#21 Posted by hagjohn on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:47
- Nobody saw this coming.
How istupid!
Last edited by hagjohn on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:54
-
#22 Posted by Cole on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:50
- That cisco phone will probably get 100 sales through it's market life. Apple should have looked this over though, dumb move. I hate the suing aspect of the world. Negotiations cannot ever happen outside the court, it's always sue sue sue.
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by DomZ on 11 Jan 2007 - 00:50
- iFone, problem solved?
-
#23.1 Posted by cantstopwontstop on 11 Jan 2007 - 18:47
- You cant do that either thats like making a company called
Hibm
or a similar event: Lindows.
-
#25 Posted by xxdesmus on 11 Jan 2007 - 02:01
- Time for Apple to to get their ass kicked, and for good reason. Talk about Apple being arrogant and idiotic to use the name when they clearly knew they didn't even have rights to it yet...stupid, just stupid.
-
(2 replies)
#26 Posted by neufuse on 11 Jan 2007 - 02:28
- why don't they just call it iTalk or iCell
-
#26.2 Posted by cantstopwontstop on 11 Jan 2007 - 18:48
- iTalk is pretty good and it will problably be the name change.
-
#27 Posted by +vlsi0n on 11 Jan 2007 - 03:08
- Or they could call it iPod w/phone...
joking, don't have a heart attack... jeez.
-
#28 Posted by Naughty Dog on 11 Jan 2007 - 03:28
- They knew Cisco had the name already. This is a good reason to sue apple for being plain retarded. Stubborn...
-
(1 reply)
#29 Posted by jasondefaoite on 11 Jan 2007 - 04:44
- From what I understand, Cisco ownes the trademark for iPhone in the USA only. Apple had been busy trademarking iPhone in the rest of the world. So apple could call it iPhone legally, but not the US :/ Maybe Apple wanted to do a cross license deal with Cisco, but I'm sure Cisco wanted $$ for the use of their trademark in the US.
I don't think Cisco had any other choice. If they didn't sue, Apple could have grounds to claim Cisco were not defending their trademark. I'm sure Apple will settle with them on this. -
#29.1 Posted by +Shadowdruid on 11 Jan 2007 - 05:06
- Quote - (jasondefaoite said @ #29)From what I understand, Cisco ownes the trademark for iPhone in the USA only. Apple had been busy trademarking iPhone in the rest of the world. So apple could call it iPhone legally, but not the US :/ Maybe Apple wanted to do a cross license deal with Cisco, but I'm sure Cisco wanted $$ for the use of their trademark in the US.
I don't think Cisco had any other choice. If they didn't sue, Apple could have grounds to claim Cisco were not defending their trademark. I'm sure Apple will settle with them on this.
Calling it 2 different names can cause issues and cost more money due to advertising.
-
(1 reply)
#31 Posted by Cyranthus on 11 Jan 2007 - 06:50
- oh the irony... a few months ago apple was suing everybody that put an 'i' before the name of the product, and now APPLE themselves are getting sued... oh, comedy.
-
#32 Posted by renio on 11 Jan 2007 - 07:13
- Gosh... They must be going bananas at Apple now
"Steve!!! Let's brainstorm!! We need a new 'catchy' i-Whatever-name... euh something like iRing, iTalk, iCall ... as long as it starts with an i!!!"
woeha!
-
(1 reply)
#33 Posted by tiddlie on 11 Jan 2007 - 08:55
- Hmmm they might be able to get around it however. A trademark is filed under 'groups' of what it covers. I'm not 100% sure, but Cisco's trademark may cover an IP phone as a PC accesory, whereas Apples would cover cellular phone.
I'm not sure how specific the tags need to be in the USA, but i'm sure Apple hasn't just walked into this completely without thinking. Their legal team MUST be slightly more savy than that. I'm no fan of Apple, and I think their hardware is shoddy (and prone to breaking down quickly), but I just can't imagine that they've walked into a lawsuit so blind.
Also Apple owned the domain before Cisco purchased the company owning the name. It's arguable that Apple have been using the name since 1999 when they registered iphone.org, and therefore Cisco didn't protect their trademark, and Apple have been using it for longer than the 5 years needed to nullify the trademark. -
#33.1 Posted by WelshBluebird on 11 Jan 2007 - 16:55
- [quote=tiddlie said,#33
I'm not sure how specific the tags need to be in the USA, but i'm sure Apple hasn't just walked into this completely without thinking. Their legal team MUST be slightly more savy than that. I'm no fan of Apple, and I think their hardware is shoddy (and prone to breaking down quickly), but I just can't imagine that they've walked into a lawsuit so blind.
.[/quote]
I disagree. They were in talks with Cisco, so its obvious they knew calling the product iPhone would be a problem.
I still find it funny though, especially since last year apple were suing people for having Pod in their name lol.
-
#35 Posted by FrozenSpoon on 11 Jan 2007 - 17:11
- Apple needs to let this go. It is clear Cisco owns this trademark, and it is clear Apple KNEW Cisco owned the trademark since they had been in discussion with Cisco for so long.
This is just showing plain arrogance. With the back dating options and now this, makes you wonder what is going on with the ethics there.
-
#36 [Guest] Posted by Guest on 11 Jan 2007 - 19:22
- I wonder if Stevie can manage to sell enough over priced phones to pay for this lawsuit.
Oh well. At least Cisco didn't take an iPhone ad and burst it into flames. Only one company stoops to that low.
Cisco Systems Inc. has owned the name “iPhone” since 2000 and today announced that it is suing Apple Inc. in federal court. Cisco obtained the trademark by acquiring InfoGear Technology Corp. over 6 years ago, which originally registered the name. It has been three weeks since Cisco’s Linksys division released a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone for which the trademark was put to use. Apple had tried to gain legal rights to use the iPhone name but upon failure chose to unveil their iPhone yesterday anyway, a touch-screen cell phone with music, video, web, voicemail and e-mail capabilities.
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name. There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." said Mark Chandler, Cisco senior vice president and general counsel.