Uh-oh, CISCO Ain't Happy

[archie]

I am not a lawyer either but from what I read today. Their last second effort to cover theri tracks is not going to cover it. They let the 3 years lapse and it seems clear that Apple has now set precedent. If you have been paying attention they have applied for the iPhone trademark names in varies coutries throughout the globe with an intent and description.

The contract and negoitiations leading up to Apple's actual announcement demanded so little. It was to entice Apple so that Cisco would have a connection to "cool".

But now Cisco is screwed.

You're right, you are not a lawyer. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Apple just decided to try to steal the name through sheer momemtum, and Cisco was trying to get them to open it up. Apple screwed up, not closing the deal before the announcement. Cisco owns the copyright, and used it. Tough titty for Apple. They figure they will sell a bajillion iPhones to cover the cost of the settlement from Cisco. (which may be an effective strategy.)

But if Cisco, get's an injunction against sale of the iPhone (they have 6 months), and delays it's release, that will hurt Apple.

I still say this is not gonna happen mikec. Now; as if nothing could top the ridiculousness of that photo supposedly documenting an actual product with an iPhone sticker slapped over the product packaging (strategically placed over the actual name but not quite covering it all up and the sticker askew and coming off, along with no documented shipping info or skew #), we have open source groups wondering where the open source code is that was supposed to be turned over.

Hey guess what; they won't be getting it because a.) the code probably doesn't exist and b.) this iPhone was never released.

That's 3 strikes against Cisco.

It seems my knowledge proves that I would serve to make a far better lawyer than you mikec, who has EVERY idea what he is talking about.

 

[archie]

Here's an interesting development!

http://www.ripcord.com/

Plus, check out the board of directors.

What do people think of this strategy?

 

[Kupe#WP]

Plus, check out the board of directors.

Holy crap! It's the Woz!!

 

[MacUser]

Here's an interesting development!

http://www.ripcord.com/

Plus, check out the board of directors.

What do people think of this strategy?

Too little too late?

 

[archie]

I think he was doing Apple a little favor by helping to dilute the brand name on paper specifically to address the timely Cisco issue (in other words, Ripcord really has no intention on producing their iPhone).

In similar regards, one can turn to www.iphone.com to find that there is yet another company, named Nuvio, using the iPhone name. There are others. Why hasn't Cisco gone after these people? It makes Cisco's case all the more laughable.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Apple just decided to try to steal the name through sheer momemtum, and Cisco was trying to get them to open it up. Apple screwed up, not closing the deal before the announcement. Cisco owns the copyright, and used it. Tough titty for Apple. They figure they will sell a bajillion iPhones to cover the cost of the settlement from Cisco. (which may be an effective strategy.)

But if Cisco, get's an injunction against sale of the iPhone (they have 6 months), and delays it's release, that will hurt Apple.

And so it it written, mikec was once again wrong and had no idea what he was saying.

 

[oalvarez]

resolved?

February 22, 2007, 9:02 am
Apple & Cisco Hug It Out Over iPhone
Posted by Heather Won Tesoriero
Apple and Cisco have agreed to resolve a trademark dispute over the term iPhone that had threatened to put a damper on the introduction of Apple?s most eagerly anticipated electronics product in years. Here are the stories from the WSJ and NYT.

The cooldown comes 42 days after Cisco sued Apple over the iPhone moniker. Under their agreement, Cisco and Apple are free to use the iPhone trademark on their respective products throughout the world. Cisco will drop a lawsuit it filed against Apple in federal court in San Francisco. The companies said other terms of the settlement are confidential, declining to comment further.

The iPhone was unveiled at the Macworld convention on January 9 and the following day, Cisco slapped Apple with its lawsuit. Cisco has held a trademark on the iPhone name since 2000. Last spring, Cisco unveiled a new line of gadgets bearing the name name that use voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, technology to transmit phone calls over the Internet. Apple plans to begin selling the iPhone in the U.S. later this year for between $499 and $599.

The companies said they would explore ways to make their identically named iPhone products work together ?in the areas of security and consumer and enterprise communication.?

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/22/apple-cisco-hug-it-out-over-iphone/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This
Read more: Intellectual Property, Technology

 

[archie]

Yeh, I saw that.
Sounds like Apple might be gaining VOIP capabilities in some fashion for the iPhone after all. Cingular may not be allowing Apple to do this while they hold exclusivity but that doesn't preclude other companies to offer it through "interoperability".

Interoperability; Cisco's primary demand could be a masked win for Apple.

I wish I could see into the future to see how this will materlize.