Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Jan 2007 23:53 UTC, submitted by danB
Legal Cisco has sued Apple over the use of the 'iPhone' brand. "Cisco today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco's registered iPhone trademark."
Order by: Score:
Seriously
by orestes on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:16 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Did anyone not see that one coming?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Seriously
by ma_d on Thu 11th Jan 2007 03:19 UTC in reply to "Seriously"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I didn't. I didn't know Cisco had this product, but I'm also not exactly a prime candidate for their products either!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Seriously
by butters on Thu 11th Jan 2007 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Cisco's iPhone is a VoIP phone, which is a very reasonable lateral move for a company specializing in enterprise IP hardware. Big companies want to get rid of their legacy telephone lines and consolidate communication over their more advanced data networks.

Apple is arguing that the two iPhone products are materially different because their's is a cellular phone whereas Cisco's is a wired IP phone. However, there is nothing (that I know of) preventing users from using Apple's iPhone as a wireless IP phone using Skype or something similar.

It's obvious that Cisco has the engineering resources to make their iPhone wireless as well. Cisco is arguing that while the products might be a bit different right now, trends in network consolidation suggest that the two products could very well compete head-to-head within a relative short timeframe.

Now, I don't think Cisco has plans to move into the cellular market or into the portable media player space, but it's not hard to see them doing a portable PIM device like a CrackBerry. So, the battle over the iPhone trademark is complicated by the fact that the Apple iPhone does so many things, a couple of which are reasonable market opportunities for Cisco.

I don't think there's any way that Apple is going to walk away from this lawsuit the victor. Either they'll change the name, pay Cisco an 8-figure settlement for the rights, or (most likely) grant Cisco some rights pertaining to iTunes/FairPlay.

This much is fairly clear. The multi-million-dollar question that nobody has convincingly answered is why this situation was allowed to get to this point. This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion, and considering the marketing prowess of at least one of the parties (if not both), there's got to be a reason why this trademark dispute was allowed to boil over like this. This lawsuit is probably in Apple's best interests for some reason, as if they are baiting Cisco into some sort of trap.

In the big picture, the iPhone is a HUGE product for Apple, likely to supersede the iPod in many markets in a few years. This has been in the works for years, a big bet for Apple. They wouldn't use this product to pick a fight with another big-name tech company unless they knew exactly what they were doing.

They could have called their other new product by its codename, iTV, but they instead chose Apple TV. Why the obviously contentious iPhone instead of something like Apple Phone?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Seriously
by dylansmrjones on Thu 11th Jan 2007 04:59 UTC in reply to "Seriously"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I didn't see it. Personally I have no idea what to think of this. I can see the need for protecting brand names - OTOH brand names ought to be rather different than ordinary names. Putting one or two letters in front of an ordinary name is hardly worthy of protection, IMHO.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Seriously
by antwarrior on Fri 12th Jan 2007 01:03 UTC in reply to "Seriously"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

Erm .. i am sure this was on digg almost a week ago. I might do a search for it later. But it was during the time of speculation about the iPhone and the fact that Cisco already owns the trademark .... so i wasn't surprise when I saw this today

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm...
by Ventajou on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:16 UTC
Ventajou
Member since:
2006-10-31

I guess now would be a good time to trademark iFridge, iToaster, iCouch and definitely iBeer...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hmmm...
by melkor on Thu 11th Jan 2007 02:49 UTC in reply to "Hmmm..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

don't forget to TM iShit ;-) And for politicians, we need to especially TM iMADIPSHIT ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 11th Jan 2007 04:57 UTC in reply to "Hmmm..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The last one... shouldn't that be myBeer?

Reply Score: 2

They must be prepared for it
by tristan on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:17 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

This story is also carried by the BBC[1], which points out that Cisco has owned the trademark since 2000, and that Cisco brand Linksys released an internet phone called the iPhone just a couple of weeks ago.

Now anyone who's tried to use the word "pod" in a product knows how fanatical Apple are about their trademarks. There's no possible way that they could have missed this, and yet they went ahead with the launch. This means that

a) They're willing to pay Cisco a lot of money for either ownership or licence of the trademark

b) They're going to fight it in court, most probably by trying to argue all names of the form "iAnything" belong to Apple.

If it's (a), it raises the question of why they didn't do this prior to the announcement, to avoid all this unpleasant publicity.

If it's (b), then that's a very scary prospect indeed.



[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6250511.stm

Reply Score: 5

RE: They must be prepared for it
by vimh on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:22 UTC in reply to "They must be prepared for it"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

It's only scary if the judge sided with Apple. Otherwise it's funny in that Apple is out of its mind.

I think it's a. That still leads me to think Apple is out of its mind.

I'd like to know what Ciscos terms were.

Reply Score: 3

RE: They must be prepared for it
by tomcat on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:28 UTC in reply to "They must be prepared for it"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06


a) They're willing to pay Cisco a lot of money for either ownership or licence of the trademark

b) They're going to fight it in court, most probably by trying to argue all names of the form "iAnything" belong to Apple.

If it's (a), it raises the question of why they didn't do this prior to the announcement, to avoid all this unpleasant publicity.

If it's (b), then that's a very scary prospect indeed.


My guess is that it's (a). Although Apple should be very concerned bcause there's no limit to how much Cisco could demand, I think that Apple is going to throw some big money at the problem and try to make it go away. Apple could always argue that it never intended to use "iPhone"; that it was merely a codeword for their product, not the eventual product name, if negotiations with Cisco fall apart. Just a guess.

Reply Score: 1

tspears Member since:
2006-05-22

b) They're going to fight it in court, most probably by trying to argue all names of the form "iAnything" belong to Apple.

what about Novell, they have iFolder, iPrint, iManager, and the like... I don't think you can patent or claim IP on a nomenclature system.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Or, it's all planned by Apple and Cisco. Big hooplah, they settle, both companies get a lot of free advertising.

Mmm, black helicopters...

Reply Score: 1

mcduck Member since:
2005-11-23

Or, it's all planned by Apple and Cisco. Big hooplah, they settle, both companies get a lot of free advertising.

Or, Cisco releases a MP3 player named iPod.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Or, Cisco releases a MP3 player named iPod.

That would be priceless. If I worked at Cisco, I'd do it just for the fun of it.

Reply Score: 1

tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

Or, it's all planned by Apple and Cisco. Big hooplah, they settle, both companies get a lot of free advertising.

Mmm, black helicopters...


Given that this news has negatively affected Apple's share price (which anyone could have predicted), I think such action would probably be illegal. Not that Steve Jobs seems to care much about the legalities of share dealing, of course.

Also, it's not like Apple need any more publicity for this thing: it was on the front of national newspapers here today, for goodness' sake. And this doesn't exactly make them look good.

Having thought about it, I think it's most likely that they expected to be sued, and will try to use the court case to extract some reasonable licensing terms out of Cisco. I don't know enough about US trademark law though to know whether a judge can force such a thing however.

Reply Score: 3

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Did you actually check the stock price?

Up around 15% since the iPhone announcement. Down less than 1% since the announcement that Cisco was suing.
The stock has been hardly affected at all by this news.

Reply Score: 1

RE: They must be prepared for it
by smashIt on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:37 UTC in reply to "They must be prepared for it"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

b) They're going to fight it in court, most probably by trying to argue all names of the form "iAnything" belong to Apple.

the only problem is that ciscos iPhone-brand dates back 2 years before the first iMac
If someone copied the "i-Brand" it's apple

Reply Score: 5

atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

the only problem is that ciscos iPhone-brand dates back 2 years before the first iMac
If someone copied the "i-Brand" it's apple


Stop, reverse.

Cisco trademark is 2000, first iMac is 1998 (iMovie is 1999, iPod and iTunes are 2001, iPhoto 2002 -- thanks, Wikipedia) and Cisco's iPhone came out a few months ago, tops, so Apple could easily make a strong case that iThings are their brand.

Still, it doesn't look great for Apple. From Steve Jobs's own mouth, the iPhone had been in development for two and a half years, not seven, and Cisco got their allegedly intelligent phone out the door first.

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

infogear registered "iPhone" in 1996
cisco bought infogear in 2000
linksys announced their first iPhone in late 2005 when they teamed up with skype
the first iMac was released in 1998 (thats 2 years after 1996 ;) )

don't believe everything you find on wikipedia. most of the time it tells only half the truce

Edited 2007-01-11 03:36

Reply Score: 4

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Does it matter who did what when? Surely the issue is, has Apple actually tried to prohibit others using the expression iXXX on their products since 1998? If not, its going to be very difficult to argue that i-anything is an Apple trademark. Of course, if they have registered and enforced particular instances like 'iBook', 'iTune' those will be different.

Reply Score: 2

brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

"Stop, reverse.

Cisco trademark is 2000, first iMac is 1998 (iMovie is 1999, iPod and iTunes are 2001, iPhoto 2002 -- thanks, Wikipedia) and Cisco's iPhone came out a few months ago, tops, so Apple could easily make a strong case that iThings are their brand."

Actually Infogear introduced the iPhone in 1997 and Cisco bought them out in 2000 acquiring the TM.

Reply Score: 1

RE: They must be prepared for it
by minio on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:50 UTC in reply to "They must be prepared for it"
minio Member since:
2006-05-14

b) They're going to fight it in court, most probably by trying to argue all names of the form "iAnything" belong to Apple.
You mean like "iDiot"?

Reply Score: 5

v Cisco
by Buck on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:21 UTC
RE: Cisco
by tomcat on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:58 UTC in reply to "Cisco"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Poor Cisco! They want a piece of a pie too, failing to produce anything people would want or even know about (re: their own iPhone).

Did you read the article? Apple is the usurper here, not Cisco.

Cisco bought the trademark when it purchased InfoGear back in 2000. Since that time, Cisco has introduced products into the market under that name and, regardless of Apple's ambitions, Cisco deserves protection by the court.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Cisco
by nemith on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:55 UTC in reply to "Cisco"
nemith Member since:
2005-07-28

Obviously you have no idea what Cisco's market is. Besides Linksys they do not at all market to consumers. They have absolutely no reason to market to non IT people like apple does.

Unless you are trying to say that Network Engineers are not people! In which case... I must say.. that huts man!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cisco
by happycamper on Thu 11th Jan 2007 06:36 UTC in reply to "Cisco"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

/*Poor Cisco! They want a piece of a pie too, failing to produce anything people would want or even know about (re: their own iPhone). */

cisco does produce things that peple want like their network hardware.
apple is the one that fails to produce stuff that people would want to buy, like their mac line, nobody buys those. apple always fails to take the market share away from MS when they release a new mac os x version.

Edited 2007-01-11 06:43

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Cisco
by Mellin on Thu 11th Jan 2007 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Cisco"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple isn't after Microsoft they don't want all the idiots that use windows and click on anything and doesn't know anything else than to point and lick

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cisco
by postmodern on Thu 11th Jan 2007 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cisco"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

And how do you know this?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Cisco
by eggs on Thu 11th Jan 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cisco"
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

Duh, because Apple's goal as a publicly traded company isn't to make money. They'd rather sell computers to 2% of the market rather than 96%. Stupid Microsoft... they don't even know what to do with all their money. Apple likes to keep their accounting simple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Cisco
by Mellin on Fri 12th Jan 2007 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cisco"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple doesn't want to be Microsoft

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Cisco
by postmodern on Fri 12th Jan 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cisco"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

That sound's similar to an opinion, not supporting evidence.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Cisco
by happycamper on Thu 11th Jan 2007 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Cisco"
RE[3]: Cisco
by sultanqasim on Thu 11th Jan 2007 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Cisco"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

Yup, the iPod has a 0% market share and mac sales were down 100% last quarter. Macs are losing market share fast to xp. Mac market share is currently -234.123% and goinf further down.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cisco
by juojajar on Thu 11th Jan 2007 07:40 UTC in reply to "Cisco"
juojajar Member since:
2007-01-11

FYI, Cisco is a much bigger company than Apple if measured in revenue: $28.48 billion USD vs. $19.3 billion USD. So, I guess they do produce something people would know about and want!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cisco
by deb2006 on Thu 11th Jan 2007 09:03 UTC in reply to "Cisco"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

You know who Cisco is [ ]

Reply Score: 0

RE: Cisco
by microFawad on Thu 11th Jan 2007 17:58 UTC in reply to "Cisco"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

Suppose you have some company ABC_1 and your company introduces some product called XYZ. Also your company now have registered the name XYZ. If some other company ABC_2 comes and takes the name XYZ and uses it for there own product. How would you feel? Don't you become angry for using your product's name?

Now that's the case of Cisco here...

Reply Score: 1

Copying...
by atsureki on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:21 UTC
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

I've got to admit I didn't see it coming, but only because I completely forgot about Cisco's... whatever it is. I was laughing at the line "deliberately copying." If anyone's squatting someone else's name, it's the other way around, but the law probably won't fall in line with the public consciousness on this one.

Reply Score: 1

wow
by Eugenia on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:24 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Just yesterday there was an article saying that Cisco sent an allowance agreement to Apple to sign it and be done with it. And now this!

Reply Score: 1

I don't feel bad for Apple and..
by Priest on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:29 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

Apple sues companies all the time for less than this, so I an not about to start feeling sorry for them.

Cisco legitimately owned the name and has a right to it. What if someone launched an MP3 player today and named it ...iPod.

With that said, Apple has not yet released the product to production. Now that Apple has peoples attention they can name it what ever they want.

If Apple names it the iPod Phone, people will call it an iPhone anyway, and as long as that isn't printed on the box, there is nothing people can do about it.

Apple probably didn't get stupid over night.

Reply Score: 5

jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple probably didn't get stupid over night."

No, it took many many years. Lately they've been acting very uncharacteristic of themselves.

Reply Score: 5

Nintendo ~93/94, anyone?
by Constantine XVI on Thu 11th Jan 2007 00:50 UTC
Constantine XVI
Member since:
2006-11-02

Sounds like something Nintendo did back during CES in 93/94. Day 1: Electronics manufacturer Sony announces a partnership with Nintendo to make a CD-capable SNES called... The PlayStation.
Night 1: Yamauchi (Ninty pres.) reads the terms of the agreement, and finds out Sony would get production rights to the media. Nintendo doesn't like that, jumps a plane to Europe overnight
Day 2: Nintendo comes on stage, announces a CD-capable SNES called the 3DO with Phillips eV.

My guess is that Cisco wanted more than money (AirTunes, name on box, drop the AirPort, etc.)

Edit: the year is actually 89

Edited 2007-01-11 01:10

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nintendo ~93/94, anyone?
by Spinfusor on Thu 11th Jan 2007 04:20 UTC in reply to "Nintendo ~93/94, anyone?"
Spinfusor Member since:
2007-01-11

Philips released the CD-i. The 3DO was a completely separate console.

Reply Score: 1

this thread...
by jtrapp on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:00 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

is more speculative than all of the rumors leading up to Mac World...

When all is said and done we know little more than we did yesterday morning. This is probably much ado propogated by the Apple spin machine. Talking about the name keeps us from asking real questions...what CPU?...what graphics chip?...will it accept 3rd party apps?...what has been cut out of OS X?...or pretty much anything else of any import

Reply Score: 2

Just an excuse to drop the name?
by BlackJack75 on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:03 UTC
BlackJack75
Member since:
2005-08-29

Maybe they don't want the name?

I mean, if Linksys had the trademark for years and even released a phone called iPhone before they even announced theirs, it's rather unlikely that the brand's ownership would change hands.

On the other hand I can perfectly foresee Jobs on stage, for the release of the iP*** jokingly mentioning that they couldn't use iPhone because it's used by THAT crap made by linksys.

Reply Score: 1

Easy...
by Eugenia on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:17 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

If Apple must change the name, they will have no alternative but to call it "iPod Phone". You see, this is the only way to minimize the damage, as both words are recognizable by people who already heard of the "iPhone".

Reply Score: 1

iCom
by Murrell on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:35 UTC
Murrell
Member since:
2006-01-04

If Cisco kills this, $10 says that Apple switches to one of iComm, iFone, or iRing.

Heh. iRing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: iCom
by aent on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:24 UTC in reply to "iCom"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

iFone probably wouldn't be legal as thats pretty directly trying to confuse consumers. Cisco would get to file a second lawsuit against Apple for even more damages. That would be like me releasing an operating system called Windoze.

Reply Score: 1

Ironic
by sjette on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:43 UTC
sjette
Member since:
2005-11-08

Of course, Cisco wants a piece of the pie. They had the name a long time ago but nobody cared about it. Suddenly knowing that Apple was going to release their phones a some point very soon, they release their IPhone.

I still believe that Apple will change the name to something else before release and basically leave Cisco in the dust.

I am not saying Apple was not asking for it but for goodness sake, the product is not even shipping yet.

Reply Score: 1

If I Were Cisco...
by bigcraig01 on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:46 UTC
bigcraig01
Member since:
2007-01-11

I'd give em the name... With a catch... I'd get a license for FairPlay DRM, for use on my new line of Linksys Digital Media Recievers with the logo stating "iTunes Ready" right on the box.

Creative should have done that when they won the iPod interface from the patent office.

Reply Score: 2

Apple needs to get creative
by ronaldst on Thu 11th Jan 2007 02:00 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

and let go of the fisher price naming scheme.

Couldn't they try to come up with an original name in 2 years of making this phone?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apple needs to get creative
by MechR on Thu 11th Jan 2007 02:19 UTC in reply to "Apple needs to get creative"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

Most likely, they reckon brand recognition trumps originality in naming, which is understandable.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple needs to get creative
by Chicken Blood on Thu 11th Jan 2007 17:08 UTC in reply to "Apple needs to get creative"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

There's nothing Fisher Price about it. It's simple brand recognition.

More important than an original name, just for the sake of it.

The "Apple TS2250 mobile phone" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Edited 2007-01-11 17:08

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple needs to get creative
by butters on Thu 11th Jan 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "Apple needs to get creative"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

They tried, but "Zune" was already taken.

Reply Score: 2

Hmm...
by pcummins on Thu 11th Jan 2007 03:36 UTC
pcummins
Member since:
2005-07-10

That's big business for you, break out the lawyers when negotiations get tough. Maybe they can use iMove, iMobile, iMobility, iTalk, iConnect or iCommunicate if they don't get their iPhone trademark? Kind of strange for Apple to limit themselves to "phone" when it's supposed to be doing a lot lot more...

Reply Score: 2

v Apple should be taking Cisco to court
by redbarchetta on Thu 11th Jan 2007 04:03 UTC
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Well fortunately for the rest of the sane world they don't give trademarks for i*. There are no wildcards in trademarks. Cisco legitimately had this one and released a product called iPhone before Apple's was even being concieved. As much as it may hurt the Apple fanboys, Apple is wrong on this one.

Reply Score: 5

Spinfusor Member since:
2007-01-11

"Hmmmm let me see they already have iPod, iTunes, iMac, iChat, in their portfolio..."

Which were all revealed and released after the iPhone trademark was registered (in 1996).

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The iPhone trademark is 11 years old ;)

Reply Score: 5

I'd sue them too.
by openwookie on Thu 11th Jan 2007 05:40 UTC
openwookie
Member since:
2006-04-25

Apple does not own 'iPhone'. If they really did not want to get sued they would have either choosen a different name (they had plenty of time, seven years!), or bought 'iPhone' before announcing it. Apple *really* want it and Cisco knew it.

Cisco was obviously waiting to see the reaction of the announcment, and when they saw how positive it was the price went up. Suing is necessary to legally protect their trademark . It also has the benefit of putting pressure on Apple to get a deal done. They make a lot more money on the deal too.

Well played Cisco.

Edited 2007-01-11 05:42

Reply Score: 2

Brand names
by zegenie on Thu 11th Jan 2007 07:02 UTC
zegenie
Member since:
2005-12-31

Seriously, when Microsoft managed to "win" the case vs Lindows, because of their use of the generic, non-copyrightable term "windows", I see no reason why Apple can't argue that they "own" the rights to use any and all iThis- and iThat-names. It makes just as much sense.

Reply Score: 0

why not call it...
by agepee on Thu 11th Jan 2007 07:15 UTC
agepee
Member since:
2005-10-11

iCall

sounds good to me and is easier to speak than iMobile.

Btw: didn't Jobs say in the presentation "Boy did we patent it"?

Reply Score: 0

Congratulation
by Duffman on Thu 11th Jan 2007 07:28 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

The first sue for Apple Inc. =)

Reply Score: 2

Yes, yes, yes:
by deb2006 on Thu 11th Jan 2007 09:02 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

I hope Apple is going to be beaten up badly. They've done this to many other companies and individuals, and now it is time for a little revenge.
I'll keep my fingers crossed for Cisco!

Reply Score: 2

huh?
by Governa on Thu 11th Jan 2007 09:05 UTC
Governa
Member since:
2006-04-09

I don't get it, beforet this Cisco issued this official comment:

"Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today."

...and now this? I guess they want a share of the cake. I mean come on, who is really going to benefit from the name iPhone more? Who wants the Cisco/Linksys iPhone? And why didn't they try to recover iPhone.org domain from Apple?

Anyway Apple's iPhone isn't available for pre-order, much less being sold, yet. This naming issue will be worked out before that.

And there are so many options out there: iPod Phone, iPod Mobile, MacPhone, AppleTalk (haha), iChat Mobile, iMobile, iTalk... :-)

Edited 2007-01-11 09:06

Reply Score: 2

What else?
by stestagg on Thu 11th Jan 2007 10:19 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

I kinda wish that they'd called their other major product release: iTV. Then we could have watched the legal sparks fly ;)

Reply Score: 1

Huh?
by Quoth_the_Raven on Thu 11th Jan 2007 17:12 UTC
Quoth_the_Raven
Member since:
2005-11-15

C'mon. Are you clowns so naive to belive Apple doesn't know the history of the iPhone trademark? There's more to it than meets the eye and they obviously know something that we don't.

How bad is this going to damage Apple or the iPhone's success. Not a scratch. No such thing as bad publicity.

Edited 2007-01-11 17:14

Reply Score: 1

One word:
by Havin_it on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:12 UTC
Havin_it
Member since:
2006-03-10

iPwn3d.

Reply Score: 2

New name
by Bob Slob on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:46 UTC
Bob Slob
Member since:
2007-01-11

They should just switch the name to iPwn (speak: I own) :-)

Reply Score: 1

From CISCO's blog
by ronaldst on Thu 11th Jan 2007 19:05 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29
Couldn't Apple change the name to EyePhone?
by stodge on Thu 11th Jan 2007 19:09 UTC
stodge
Member since:
2005-09-08

Couldn't Apple change the name to EyePhone?

One way to look at this is that Apple chose the name iPhone to get attention and instant brand recognition. If they had to change the name, they've already got the public's attention and most people wouldn't find it too difficult following the product to the new name.

Or they're just going to fight it in courts or pay a wedge of money - the potential revenue from the iPhone is big methinks.

Reply Score: 1

Nothing to worry Apple here
by mkone on Thu 11th Jan 2007 20:41 UTC
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

Did anyone notice the phone doesn't seem to have the name on it.

I saw the Cingular logo on it, but no iPhone. So maybe this is just to play around with Cisco, get a bit of controversy, then quietly change the name. I mean everyone knows about this phone now.

Heck they could call it "PowerPhone", and in two years time everyone will be appending "Power" to the names of their products. I mean, the iName thingy is distinctively Apple. Everyone and their grandmother knows that.

Just call it the MacPhone Apple. There you have it, anyone taking bets on the final name.

Edited 2007-01-11 20:46

Reply Score: 1

Haha..
by Bringbackanonposting on Thu 11th Jan 2007 22:31 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

...suck sh&t Jobs. Idiots.

Reply Score: 0

rolf
by cg0def on Fri 12th Jan 2007 10:24 UTC
cg0def
Member since:
2006-02-12

now this is funny and was really bound to happen. Can't believe the Apple layers didn't research this one ...

Reply Score: 1