Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco Extends Negotiations on iPhone

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the just-a-little-bit-longer dept.

The Courts 74

An anonymous reader writes "Apple and Cisco have just a short while longer to discuss the use of the iPhone name for Apple's new product. Cisco has extended the deadline for a resolution out to February 21st. The two companies are seeking a peaceful resolution to their problems, and the deadline was extended to 'reach an agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.' Early this month, Cisco put their lawsuit on hold to start these negotiations - it's easy to understand why they wouldn't want to scrap a whole month's worth of discussion over a few final details."

cancel ×

74 comments

Sphere of Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060982)

I'm not sure how this is in my 'sphere of concern' and it certainly is not in my 'sphere of influence'. This qualifies as background noise.

Re:Sphere of Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061076)

I'm not sure I want to here about your sphere's.

Re:Sphere of Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061296)

I'm not sure I want to here about your sphere's.

Your spelling and grammatical errors have been bolded in the text above.

This is the sentence you meant to write: I'm not sure I want to hear about your spheres.

Re:Sphere of Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064464)

This is the sentence you meant to write: I'm not sure I want to hear about your spheres.

That poster is a moron, don't bother. The person can't spell, how are they going to comprehend this: http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/circle.htm [breakoutofthebox.com] Let them waste their life worrying about whether or not the iPhone trademark belongs to CISCO or Apple.

Why can't Cisco just sell it? (3, Insightful)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061004)

Why could Apple just buy the trademark? Is Cisco charging too much, since they know they have Apple over a barrel? Here's how I see it:

1. Cisco got the trademark, legal and straight.
2. Apple wanted it.
3. Cisco wouldn't give it up.
4. Apple used it anyway.
5. Cisco sues.

Why can't Cisco just sell it? Is it just a case of general greed?

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061096)

Apple doesn't believe that cisco has a good claim to the trademark for the name as they don't really use it.
Therefore they aren't about to shell about a bunch of money to cisco and do exactly what cisco wants.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (4, Informative)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061168)

You can't sell a trademark [wikipedia.org] in the US without the sale of some underlying asset. And, presumably, that asset must appear in the phone.

Trademark isn't an asset like copyrighted works or patents. It's a method for customers to identify the source of goods. Suppose a customer associates "iphone" with cisco -- if someone other that cisco sells an "iphone", then the trademark has failed and does not serve its purpose of manufacturer identification. .. now whether customers associate "iphone" more with Cisco or Apple is another question. And, if the courts assign it to the lesser-associated-with product, will it serve the public interest?

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061192)

Cisco got the trademark, legal and straight.

Did they? The nameing format for Apple products is well established. How is this any different than domain squating? Cisco is being dishonest about this, and is extorting Apple to get a piece of pie that they have no right to. Apple will end up paying Cisco because it'll be cheaper in the long run, but the shouldn't have to.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061248)

The nameing format for Apple products is well established.
So any product name with the letter 'i' preceding it belongs to Apple simply because the naming format for their products is well established?

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061438)

So any product name with the letter 'i' preceding it belongs to Apple simply because the naming format for their products is well established?

Don't be an idiot. Apple doesn't make toasters or cars or washing machines. They do, however, make electronics.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061518)

Apple doesn't make toasters or cars or washing machines. They do, however, make electronics.
So any "electronics" product name with the letter 'i' preceding it belongs to Apple simply because the naming format for their products is well established? Are you aware that Apple sells several products that in no way could be considered "electronics"? You're even ignoring the fact that this was filed in 1996, which was long before Apple had any such 'i' naming convention.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061568)

Pretty much! Tell you what, announce a watch with a bluetooth interface (been done), call it iWatch, and see how long it takes forAppleto give you a call.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061840)

Look, if they see a new electronics gadgets with an i in front of it, 90% of all people immediately think "Apple," if only because of the iPod. Cisco must have expected this to happen. They didn't use iPhone because they thought it was a good name for their product. They used it because they thought that they could get some money or other benefits out of Apple.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061972)

So when Cisco originally filed for this in 1996 they should have somehow known that several years in the future Apple would start putting an 'i' in front of their product names? Despite it being mentioned several times in the comments, some of you Apple fans don't seem to understand that Cisco filed for this long, long before Apple had any such naming convention.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065448)

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. Yeah, they filed for this a long time ago, but they never used it. Only now that they think they can get something from Apple are they starting to use it. As I wrote:

They didn't use iPhone because they thought it was a good name for their product. They used it because they thought that they could get some money or other benefits out of Apple.

What's your point? What exactly are you telling me is not correct with what I wrote?

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

davetv (897037) | more than 7 years ago | (#18066446)

and here I was thinking "Apple" made Beatles records

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Foodie (980694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18066002)

That's because they are iDiots.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061876)

Don't be an idiot. Apple doesn't make toasters or cars or washing machines. They do, however, make electronics.
My toaster, car, and washing machine all have significant electrical components. In fact, the toaster and washing machine are entirely electronic.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061318)

Actually the iPhone trademark was filed in 1996, before Apple "came up with" the idea of prefixing a word with an 'i'.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state =m4r9h4.2.14

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061612)

Actually the iPhone trademark was filed in 1996

But the question is, do they actually have a product? No?

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Koushiro (612241) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061754)

Yes? [amazon.com]

Read the product description. (2, Informative)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062190)

Read the product description. Note that while the name of the product is "Linksys WIP320 Linksys Wireless-G Skype iPhone", everywhere else it refers to the phone as, "the Linksys Wireless-G Phone for Skype", or simply, "the Wireless-G Phone".

Not the "the Wireless-G iPhone". Looks to me like they tacked an "i" onto the product name just in time for the lawsuit.

Be interesting to see if anyone has any physical brochures or product sheets on the "iPhone" that predate the lawsuit... and whether or not they had an "i" in them.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061758)

This person needs a virtual finger straight up the butty. Then the finger needs to be prodded into his nose and mouth. He will probably enjoy it, after all 99% of Apple users are flaming homosexual.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (4, Insightful)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062044)

Okay to all the posters prior to this who pointed out the cisco iPhone...

Cisco created that product AFTER Apple announced their iPhone. Cisco allowed their trademark to LAPSE then quickly pulled it back while it was in limbo before being completely abandoned. Cisco incorrectly claimed to have an iPhone product when they renewed the trademark. After word of Apple's iPhone started floating around, Cisco quickly rebranded an existing product to use the iPhone name hoping to hold on to it.

In short, Cisco acted with bad faith, and continues to do so.

I don't particularly like either company, but I think Cisco is the dishonest party in this case.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18066210)

Sure sure... what explain why i have an iPhone over here for about a year.
Get your facts straight.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18068084)

According to Wikipedia they released new iPhones in late 2006.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061468)

If MS does something it's bad.
If Apple does something, you cum.
Slashdot...proof that aliens SHOULD wipe out the human race.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (-1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061584)

If Apple does something, you cum.

I've got a bag of apples I'm cumming on right now. I plan to take them to work and leave them in the break room.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

Mr_Toph (843301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061536)

See, the thing is they should have to pay, just for the reason that they were a little cocky in having one of Steve Job's "release parties" for a product that they don't legally have rights to the name on.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1)

msh317 (917677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18066230)

One primary reason Cisco may not be able to just "Sell" the iphone trademark is that Cisco doesn't own it - research shows at least two prior iPhone products before Cisco's use of the name - one was in production from the same company that received the original VoIP Patent award - iLink. This was a Marriott company based in Salt Lake during the late 90's - one of the founding members was a young Ukrainian named "Alex Radulivic" who was eventually awarded a limited patent on the first development of VoIP. One of the products in production from iLink was the iPhone - an integrated computer/phone product - it was just too early to market. I'm pretty sure the trademark was not renewed - and is now public domain.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18067316)

Apple believes there is ample evidence to reevoke (or at least vigourosly contest) the trademark (late filing, no products in the market for the longest time etc.). Cisco believes they can get big bucks from Apple for the name. Hence the legal dancing.

Peaceful resolution...? (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061028)

The two companies are seeking a peaceful resolution to their problems, and the deadline was extended to 'reach an agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.

If they failed to come to a "peaceful resolution", does that mean open war between Apple and Cisco? That should be interesting. Apple can hurl old Macs from Cupertino and Cisco can hurl old routers from San Jose.

Re:Peaceful resolution...? (1)

barwin (588144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061058)

The use of the word 'peaceful' caught my eye too. It's not like these are US/Iraq talks or something.

I imagine that even if they don't settle this quickly, there won't be bloodshed ... or will there??

Re:Peaceful resolution...? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061174)

There's lots of literature/games/stories with fights between megacorps.

Notable for example Shadowrun [wikipedia.org] .

This is where our society is headed...

Imagine if this money had gone towards research. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061086)

A massive amount of money has no doubt been wasted on legal fees over this debacle. Situations like this always disgust me when high-tech companies are involved, mainly because that money could have been put to far better uses by both companies.

Imagine what sort of breakthroughs or other technological developments we could have had if Apple and Cisco had given this money to their engineers, rather than their lawyers.

Even just for Apple, this money could no doubt have purchased a number of new optimizations for GCC, potentially increasing the performance of every new Apple system. Better performance for all Mac users seems to be a greater net benefit than a few lawyers getting rich.

There may be another reason (2, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061124)

Based on everything I've heard I think the unspoken issue may be Cisco trying to use this issue to keep Apple out of VOIP. Their case doesn't sound strong enough to keep Apple from using the name but they probably can with VOIP phones.

Re:There may be another reason (1)

karinneandressa (1065674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061646)

A cisco deverá realmente usar para voip. http://blog.fenon.com.br/ [fenon.com.br]

hmm (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061180)

I still think it should be called "iCell" Get it? iPod...iCell...units of space...function as extra storage space for various files...

*crickets*

Re:hmm (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061404)

Sorry... iDontGetIt.

Re:hmm (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061640)

Pod: A protective capsule or case.

Cell: A small room or prison.

"Wow, monk cells look like little pods from a distance...now I understand why we call plant-cells 'cells'."

Re:hmm (1)

able1234au (995975) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062528)

In the U.S. it is a cellphone In Australia it is a mobile phone In Asia it is a handphone The only common word is phone, so i guess iPhone makes more sense.

Re:hmm (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062598)

I have never called my harddrive, or my MP3 player, a "pod" though. Is there a country that does?

I think Cicso knows they may lose the case (4, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061206)

If it ever went to court, Cicso would probably lose their trademark. For one, other products were released by other companies that used the name iPhone. Cicso did absolutely nothing. That's a big hit in a trademark lawsuit. If you don't defend it, you lose it. Second, Cicso filed the trademark renewal at almost literally the last minute, and the photo they used was an existing product with a sticker that said "iPhone" slapped on the outside of the clear plastic wrapping. So it stands that they did not have a product named "iPhone" when they renewed their trademark, which means that their renewal was more than likely invalid. If you don't use it, you lose it. Hopefully both companies sort things out, but I think if it ever came to a nasty trademark suit, Apple would wind up with the trademark.

Re:I think Cicso knows they may lose the case (4, Interesting)

dhovis (303725) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061516)

I think it goes beyond knowing they may lose the case. I think they know that they not only will lose the case, but Cisco also has a couple of employees who are potentially on the hook for perjury right now for fraudulently signing that affidavit claiming that they've been using the trademark for years when they clearly had not. They even submitted a forged picture with a sticker on the outside of the shrinkwrap, claiming it was an actual product being sold by Cisco. Cisco wants to find a way out of this without going to trial, but they can't look to their shareholders like they gave up the potentially very valuable trademark "iPhone" for nothing.

Re:I think Cicso knows they may lose the case (1)

Mr_Toph (843301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061552)

For one, other products were released by other companies that used the name iPhone. Cicso did absolutely nothing. That's a big hit in a trademark lawsuit. If you don't defend it, you lose it.
What "other products" named iPhone? There was only one product named iPhone and Cisco bought the company that owned the product, which is how they came across the trademark. It wouldn't be just Cisco kicking up a fuss if someone else had a product named iPhone, Apple would be doing the same.

Re:I think Cicso knows they may lose the case (1)

Iago515 (862958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062686)

If this ever went to court, assuming what you say is correct, then both will lose. Cisco would lose the trademark, but Apple would lose time. Apple wants to start selling the product this year: how long do you think it'll take for the courts to settle this? I would put money in not a short enough time frame for Apple's liking.

Re:I think Cicso knows they may lose the case (2, Informative)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062876)

Apple only loses time if Cisco gets an injunction against them using the name.

If Apple is confident that there will be no injunction, then they can continue to
market the iPhone without any lost time.

Cisco Doesn't have a Leg to Stand on (1)

tres (151637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061280)


It's more likely that Cisco's sword rattling didn't have the desired effect; Apple still went ahead without Cisco's "approval." The business leaders at Cisco let the trademark lapse [slashdot.org] . Even if Cisco still had rights to the trademark, the scope of the trademark is doubtful; it could be proved that an IP phone and a wireless phone are really in the same market at all.

Cisco doesn't want money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061384)

...they want interoperability. For the phone to function in an open way. I'll bet you do too.

Re:Cisco doesn't want money... (3, Insightful)

75th Trombone (581309) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061870)

Cisco doesn't want money

Cisco is a corporation. For anyone to make such a statement about a corporation is patently ridiculous.

Re:Cisco doesn't want money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064486)

This is what the Cisco representitive said. "it is not about money . . ."

Re:Cisco doesn't want money... (1)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18071056)

>> | Cisco doesn't want money
>>
>> Cisco is a corporation. For anyone to make such a statement
>> about a corporation is patently ridiculous.

There exist non-profit corporations [wikipedia.org]

Your conclusion is correct in this case, but it does not apply tautologically to all corporations.

Thoughts on Apple & Cisco (5, Insightful)

maggard (5579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061474)

Coupla thoughts:

  • It's not clear that Cisco "owns" the name "iPhone" in this case.

    • Apple's product isn't particularly close to the "iPhone" product Cisco now holds the trademark for.
    • There are several other trademarked "iPhone" products also slightly dissimilar that Cisco hasn't challenged (nor have they challenged Cisco).
    • Cisco hadn't exercised their trademarked "iPhone" until they rushed a rebranded product out just in advance of Apple's announcement. This was clearly done entirely to support any claim to the "iPhone" name as the packaging was nothing more then crack-n-peel stickers pasted over the product's original name, not a particularly credible product.
  • Cisco's goal appears to be assuring their interoperability with this, and later, versions of Apple's iPhone line.

    • Assured interoperability could prove highly valuable should Apple's iPhone product line eventually encompass VOIP technologies, something most folks expect will happen sooner rather then later.
    • On the other hand such an obligated partnership could well prove onerous to Apple; greatly complicating future technology directions and post-AT&T-committment/other-region carrier negotiations.
    • Apple has historically not been a great hardware partner, witness their repeated difficulties with Motorola (the rocky AIM alliance, their unilateral cancellation of Motorola's license to build 3rd party Mac motherboards, the dismal limitations and stunted marketing of the ROKR phone capped with Apple's decision to build a competing phone. ) A forced partnership with Cisco doesn't inspire much confidence of a better relationship.
  • The trademark issue is unlikely to have any immediate effect on Apple's "iPhone" marketing or consumers, it's all IMHO a tempest-in-a-teapot.

    • For the reasons above Cisco is unlikely to get either an injunction against Apple continuing to market the name "iPhone" or a summary judgement in Ciscio's favor. Instead this is likely to drag out for years in legal actions & responses.
    • While Apple has begun their marketing for the iPhone it hasn't even entered production yet, so any branding changes to another name is still entirely possible, and will only create more hype.
    • The most likely end result of this whole exercise is Apple either winning the right to use "iPhone" as a a different product then the one Cisco now holds the trademark for, or Apple in a few years pays Cisco some sum of money to make up for damages and makes the whole thing go away.

Frankly this whole discussion seems a product of the extreme interest in Apple's iPhone and no new real news to report on it, so instead everyone natters on about a trademark issue as if it has any substantive effect.

What interests me far more is what Apple has done then what it is named.

Apple has changed the relationship between phone makers and carriers. They got Cingular, now AT&T, to change their backend specifically to accomodate the iPhone's front-end features. That's big. That cracks open the door to carriers finally starting to get smart about expanding services in partnership with handset makers instead of simply dictating what of the standard feature sets they will & will not support.

Apple seems poised to deliver a mass market portable web browser. No, they're not the first, but to a large extant this is the first one most consumers will be aware of. Finally a decent browser, not the ugly-stepsister WAP stuff, with a good sized screen and able to connect to both the 'net & local networks.

And yeah, it's a wide-screen(ish, it's a bit of an odd ratio) iPod video player. A larger, very high quality, screen, abandonment of the defining circular touchpad, a refreshed interface and video now becoming a peer to audio instead of being an afterthought.

Indeed, what is most suprising to me is that Apple even chose to emphasie the phone aspect of the device in it's naming. "iPod" has always been ambigious in it's intention and I'd have thought could have easily expanded to encompass the new web browsing & phone functionality. Instead Apple chose to create a new brand specifically based on the phone aspect.

Re:Thoughts on Apple & Cisco (1)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061852)

I agree, the trademark issue is a sideshow. Some of the other things Apple's doing are a lot more interesting. Some in a not-so-good way, alas.

Re:Thoughts on Apple & Cisco (1)

jeryan2 (168791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062550)

It seems like Apple Inc. Could easily side step this brouhaha by doing what they did with iTV, viz: change the name just prior (or at) release to, "ta da", Apple Phone.

Re:Thoughts on Apple & Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064374)

What interests me far more is what Apple has done then what it is named.

That's true for many people, I think. But I think you also forgot to mention another point...

Even if Apple is forced to change the name....

(1) every newspaper article in the nation will still call it an iPhone at least once during the final launch when it starts shipping

(2) many customers will still call it an iPhone even if they lose the lawsuit. Palm lost its lawsuit [wikipedia.org] with the Pilot Pen company in 1998 (9 years ago!) but MANY people still call them PalmPilots even though Palm's OS group or HW group have not used the phrase PalmPilot for many many years. The lesson is that the *courts* or *companies* aren't always the deciding factor of who calls something by a certain name.

Re:Thoughts on Apple & Cisco (1)

bmud (590967) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076198)

Your writing would gain a significant measure of immaterial credibility if you knew the difference between then and than. "Then" is subsequent in time. "Than" is for comparisons.

I have a solution: (4, Funny)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061724)

Googlefight to the death. Winner takes the trademark.

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1= Apple+AND+iPhone&word2=Cisco+AND+iPhone [googlefight.com]

Looks like Cisco got iPwned

interesting? (0)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062692)

I sure hope that the 'interesting' moderation is because 'funny' doesn't get you karma. There's nothing interesting about a google fight between a product that supposedly has been available for years but has gotten little attention, and a product that got more press coverage than the O.J. case relatively recently.

Here's a much simpler solution:
Did anybody use the term iPhone for a product in the voice telecommunications business before? If so - let them have it. If they didn't file for it. Fine - nobody gets the trademark. And everybody still gets to use it if they so wish.. they just don't get to add a fancy ^tm or (R) next to it and "iPhone is a (registered) trademark of ..." at the bottom of all their advertising crap.

More money (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061732)

Cisco could have negotiated with Apple until they reached an agreement over the use of the iPhone trademark, but I think they sued Apple because they could get more money this way.

Re:More money (1)

tgibbs (83782) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062796)

Cisco could have negotiated with Apple until they reached an agreement over the use of the iPhone trademark, but I think they sued Apple because they could get more money this way.


Absolutely. And Apple could have reached an agreement early on, but they thought they could save money this way.

Both companies have fairly strong positions. Cisco had the rights to the name and is currently using it (even if they obviously stuck the name on a product just to head Apple off). But Apple could use another name on the box at this point and everybody would still call it "iPhone" no matter what Cisco did. After all, Apple already did that very thing with iTV...sorry, I meant AppleTV. So it is taking both companies awhile to gauge the strength of one another's bargaining positions and figure out what that translates into in terms of dollars.

Re:More money (1)

DarkJC (810888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18067140)

Except Apple came right out and said that iTV was not the final name when we first got our sneak peak of it. They've done no such thing wrt the iPhone.

Re:More money (1)

tgibbs (83782) | more than 7 years ago | (#18067336)

Except Apple came right out and said that iTV was not the final name when we first got our sneak peak of it. They've done no such thing wrt the iPhone.


Neither have they made any commitment to use the iPhone name on the final product. Why would Apple want to show their hand this early? I think that there is no question that Apple would like to use the iPhone name if it doesn't cost them too much, but they clearly don't need it. Their negotiating position is strengthened by keeping their options open.

The Negotiations (3, Funny)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062376)

Cisco: we registered it, our copyright.
Apple: let us use iPhone or we will register iSwitch, iRouter and iFirewall.

Apple user here, but I seriously think that Cisco is worried mainly about the potential for bad PR for Cisco since Apple can seem to do no wrong lately. Headline: iPhone delayed because apple has to scratch off iPhone logo from 200,000 devices because Cisco wanted the 'i'.

Re:The Negotiations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18062430)

Alternatively "Apple shafted by their own poor business practice"

It'd just be a battle to see who can get the best PR out of it.

If apple beleived cisco really didn't have a claim they would have told to cisco to get lost.

Cisco hasn't got that strong a case (2, Interesting)

cheros (223479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063032)

Weren't there also some problems with Cisco's legal claim to the name? I can't quite remember what it was but AFAIK they failed in both US and EU to adequately secure the name.

Thus, Cisco may be just hanging on for the nuisance factor. After all, SCO got away with it for years..

It's of course my personal opinion, but I think Cisco were trying it on and Steve Jobs called their bluff. And I think he'll get away with it as well, Cisco can claim as much as it wants but Apple has pretty much claimed the 'i' naming space. We've got 25 more letters to go :-).

The networking company looking for a handout (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18062440)

No wonder their name is CiSCO.

Lame.

Am I the only one (2, Insightful)

logicnazi (169418) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063358)

Who noticed that the net effect of this lawsuit is to get apple free media coverage for apple's iPhone?

Maybe apple, or both apple and cisco have some incentive to put off settlement for awhile?

Hey Cisco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18063444)

What Pancho?
Hand me those pliers, I see a dwarf!

Hopefully... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18063988)

The iPhone will join the pile of other crappy Apple products in the scrap heap, I mean "Its a phone its an MP3 player" has been done to death,

'Peaceful' Resolution? (1)

The Cydonian (603441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064452)

WTF is that?! If the negotiations break down, will there be cannon-fire reaching 1 Infinite Loop or something?

I bet Apple sues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18069646)

the first person that tries to use the iPhone name after this.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...