Looks like Apple learned a lesson from that case – not that it’s wrong to steal intellectual property, but that sometimes it’s good to do so.
[quote]Cisco Systems has announced it is suing Apple for infringing its “iPhone” trademark, which the networking giant said it has owned since 2000. . .
The iPhone trademark was initially obtained by Infogear on March 20 1996, and transferred to Cisco in 2000 after it acquired the company.
Cisco is seeking an injunction to prevent Apple from using the iPhone name. . .
Cisco’s US iPhone trademark remained largely unused until, in December last year amid intense speculation over a possible iPhone release from Apple, Cisco unveiled a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) handset range through its Linksys division.[/quote]
Here’s Apple’s iPhone and Cisco’s earlier iPhone:
Admittedly, I believe one can lose ones rights in a trademark, even if it’s properly registered, if one fails to make commercial use of the mark on relevant products. So, maybe Apple does have a case, though this suit will surely settle very quickly.
Could be, but if so you’ve got a better news source than me. 1 hour ago all the major news sources were reporting on the lawsuit and there’s no mention of a settlement.
Regardless, if it’s not settled yet it will be very soon. It’s too petty and negative a matter to leave hanging, putting a damper on this great new product launch.
Could be, but if so you’ve got a better news source than me. 1 hour ago all the major news sources were reporting on the lawsuit and there’s no mention of a settlement.
Regardless, if it’s not settled yet it will be very soon. It’s too petty and negative a matter to leave hanging, putting a damper on this great new product launch.[/quote]
My source was older so I guess it went south at the last minute. Seems strange to not sort these things out before launch.
Would that be a good way of making money? Register every commonly used electronic item with i- before it?
The iHDTV, iMonitor, iSpeakers, i-whatever. Seems like the i- thing is Apple’s trademark, not the word iPhone, though I doubt a company can register a prefix. Loads of companies are calling their stuff ‘i-blah’. Sounds stupid though; I never liked the name ‘iPod’; sounds faux Jetsons future-tastic. Blerrrr.
Yes, but you also need to make commercial use of the trademark, meaning you need to make some sort of product (no matter how crappy) within the registered class of goods, and sell or at least publicly offer for sale that product.
Which is probably why Cisco rushed to come out with their iPhone last year. Their phone may not have been ready and it may not have realistic prospects of making a profit, but if they wished to claim their TM against Apple (and when Cisco came out with their phone rumor had it Apple was working on an iPhone) they had to be making commercial use of their registered mark.
So, one can squat on TMs to a certain extent, but it’s not so simple.
Thought as much. The Cisco 'phone just looks dodgy with its icons that look like Apple’s but not quite, the white bodywork, etc. A cheap looking product but with just enough similarities. It looks like a projection of what someone The ‘Status’ icon looks just like the icons on Skype, incidentally.
Seems like a crappy thing to do.
Forgive me if I’m over-defending Apple. I have already been brainwashed into the Apple cult. Dunno if I’d buy the iPhone, though. Past the initial ‘wow, cool’, I can’t really see what I’d use it for. It’s too small to store much music, and I wouldn’t use it as an organiser. Although having just one gadget does appeal, it just doesn’t ‘fit’ for me.
Now the next great leap would be a customise-able i-Phone… Choose the components you want. Drop the iPhone name and call it the iPocket or iGo or something. Bigger or smaller drive, different screen specs, different software bundles. Hmm, just a thought.
Looks like hardball tactics by Cisco. They know they can shake Apple down for a lot more money after Apple has already blown their PR load rather than when the project was top-secret. Not that there’s anything illegal or unethical about it. Apple should have tied this up before Macworld.
David Pogue has a write-up where he describes actually handling it. He mentions a potential drawback that many other people have predicted, that typing is a bitch without tactile feedback.
I don’t care about the phone. I just want a $350 100-gig touchscreen iPod Video.
Yes and no. Perhaps Cisco had no ulterior motives. The iPhone mark was first registered in the US in 1996 and Cisco acquired it in 2000. Maybe Cisco sincerely intended to come out with an iPhone and they came out with theirs in good faith one year prior to Apple, with no intention of playing TM games with Apple, but solely for the purpose of launching a new product for which they already had a catchy TM.
Moreover, Apple apparently screwed up. They should have done a TM search early in the development process and would have discovered iPhone was already registered. Perhaps it was Apple who had bad intentions, seeking to elbow in on the trademark, forcing Cisco to give it up even though it had been registered years earlier, just because Cisco wasn’t fast enough launching the actual phone – but then Cisco did come out with their phone first.
Could be. Perhaps Cisco had no such intentions, or perhaps they did. In which case you’re right, Cisco may have played it well in order to maximize their recovery on the name.
Agreed. Too bad for Apple. Cisco owned it first.
In any event, it shouldn’t be such a big deal. I expect the cost of settling this will be a heckuvalot less than settling a dispute over essential patents.
There’s a release demo (or whatever you wanna call it) video on youtube~ looks quite impressive, but the dude spent too much time just showing how it can play music… would’ve liked to have seen some of the other features…
looking on paper, apart from the touchscreen (which really seems to be well done), the Nokia N95 has a bucket load more. (yes, yes, i know - shuttup about that nokia already)
iPhone makes sense for the name of an Intraweb phone, and it makes sense that Cisco would have purchased the name (well before all of the iStuff.) It also makes sense that they’d now jump on the opportunity to make some money off of it.
Yes, but, it also makes infinitely more sense after the phenomenal success of the iPod. Apple took what otherwise would have been a bland, nerdy, unrecognizable name and made it trendy, recognizable and valuable.
For those who do not read German:
Some major companies like Telefonica Spain and O2 Germany would like to met Steve ‘ASAP’… in order to get their toy also pretty quick (Europe end 2007)
The Sales target worldwide is here also mentionned : 10 Million pieces. Seems pretty low.
Also its not 3G! If you could take the N95 and ram it into the iPhony body that would be great with say 30Gig and a 2gig flash buffer. Why is it so hard to get a PDA, phone, GPS, book reader, MP3 and 4 player, 4 mega camera with full video, and FM radio into one small bar??
At 499 USD with 4 Gig memory and a few million Apple followers, it should hit this presumed number at least.
Otherwise, it is even not worth producing them. I do not think that Apple will afford to loose money on it like Sony does on each PS3 they sell.
There are other phones with the iPhone tag that don’t look so Appleish.