Beta

×

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!

Apple, Cisco Settle iPhone Trademark Lawsuit

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the you-phone-we-all-phone dept.

The Courts 111

A number of readers let us know that Cisco and Apple have settled the lawsuit over the use of the iPhone name for Apple's new multimedia phone. The agreement allows Apple and Cisco both to use the iPhone brand on their own products. Also, the companies said they would explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, consumer and business communications. Apple still faces a suit over the name in Canada and one over its touch-screen technology in the UK.

cancel ×

111 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

To all those people... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107764)

...who were just oh-so-sure that Apple was going to get screwed, and was going to have to change the name, and were delighting in Apple supposedly being inevitably "forced" out of the name by Cisco, apparently not realizing that there was literally no way that iPhone wouldn't ultimately end up being the final name of this product:

Told you so. :-)

Re:To all those people... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109350)

Yep, they all said it.

Pages and pages of posts on /. saying Apple is "so dumb" for doing this. You would think they would have egg on their face not but.. nahh.. they are "still" right, and man, they are gonna tell us so too, you watch. :-P

To all the apple fanbois (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18109516)

Please get some balls and at least write something interseting. even the GNAA trolls are more interesting than your lame justifications of blatant copyright and trademark infringments by Apple.

You must be steve jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18109546)

"who were just oh-so-sure that Apple was going to get screwed,"

So you've seen the agreement then, Mr. Jobs?

Re:To all those people... (1)

Xaoswolf (524554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109758)

All apple is doing is following the successfull business model that they have seen work in microsoft.

Steal other peoples stuff and sell it as your own...

Re:To all those people... (1)

DaggertipX (547165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110948)

Really? What was stolen? The product..?
No, the actual product seems original.

Oh, you mean the name... I see. But wait, Microsoft never "stole" a name like that, to my knowledge. They have done a lot of other shady things, but never a name. So your statement doesn't make much sense, and that is even IF we decide to go along with you on Apple "stealing" this trademark. Not that I am going along with that, however, as Cisco wasn't even using the trademark for a current product, let alone one in the same market space.

I don't know why I let the trolls get to me, I really don't... I know I should just set my threshold higher, but it really is like watching a trainwreck and I can't seem to look away.

Re:To all those people... (1)

Silly Burrito (660854) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111194)

What about Windows Defender, Vista, etc.?? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/247483_msft defender08.html [nwsource.com]

Re:To all those people... (1)

DaggertipX (547165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113422)

Ok, wasn't aware of that, and thanks for the link. Even in that case, however, Microsoft wasn't entirely in the wrong. They weren't nice about it, certainly, but they definitely have the claim to how the Windows trademark was used, and had a valid case. In both cases, the old product in question was discontinued or the brand was no longer being used. In the iPhones case, it was also a very different product.
I know I'm going to get flack for calling it a very different device, but really look at the feature sets for both of them. They may both be phones, but that is a very broad category of products. We could probably argue and nitpick over terminology on that argument all day, however.

Re:To all those people... (1)

Xaoswolf (524554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111470)

Apple still faces a suit over the name in Canada and one over its touch-screen technology in the UK



There is a suit in canada about the touch screen.

Re:To all those people... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111830)

Considering Apple's history of using the i-prefix (iMac, iPod, etc.), it had just as much claim to the name "iPhone" as Cisco ever did, IMHO -- whether Cisco trademarked it or not! (Or, in other words, Cisco should never have been granted the trademark.)

Re:To all those people... (1)

Xaoswolf (524554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18112024)

I wasn't aware that apple owned the letter...

Re:To all those people... (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18112586)

Of course Apple doesn't own the letter "i," but it has used "i[Foo]" enough in the past that it's unreasonable to think that another company in the computer/consumer electronics industry could have an exclusive claim to any "i[Foo]" type name. I mean, perhaps you can argue that Apple shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from using such a name (which it's never tried to do anyway), but you can't reasonably argue that someone else should be able to prevent Apple from using that name. I mean, iPhone is just a continuation of the series "iMac," "iBook," "iPod," "iTunes," "iLife," "iWork," "iSync," etc. that Apple started in 1999 (or earlier?). What did Cisco have that was named "i[Foo]" in 1999? Nothing, that's what -- and that's exactly why Apple has a stronger claim to the name "iPhone."

Re:To all those people... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114398)

It's iRonic how often they've been able to sell i[foo] to iFools.

Re:To all those people... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18112920)

What are you talking about, It's Apple that have an history of name stealing. The company name for starters.

Canada one? (4, Funny)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107784)

Apple still faces a suit over the name in Canada one over its touch-screen technology in the UK.
Wha? How many Canadas are there now? And what do they have to do with the UK?

Re:Canada one? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107884)

So you haven't heard of the secession? Typing this from the Glorious Canada Seven

Re:Canada one? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109060)

The only seven I want from Canada is Seagrams ....

Re:Canada one? (1, Funny)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107910)

Firehose needs an option "Resubmit your post in language that makes some bloody sense."

Re:Canada one? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108810)

Warning:
- "Bloody sense" not allowed.
- local expressions are not global.

Please "submit your post again in a language that makes sense". ...

just kidding, of course.

me fail english? (1)

PDubNYC (650812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108366)

that's unpossible!

Re:Canada one? (2, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108464)

Conjunction junction, what's your function?

Apple still faces a suit over the name in Canada and one over its touch-screen technology in the UK.

Re:Canada one? (1)

Ahayuta (1042470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109428)

Canada one, UK zero...

Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107790)

But now how about the fact that Apple ripped off the design from LG's Prada?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/14/lg-officially-c alling-apples-iphone-a-copycat/ [engadget.com]

Or is ripping off other company's products ok as long as it's Apple that is doing it?

Well, considering that iPhone... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107828)

...has been in development for YEARS, I don't know so.

Use your brain, dumbass.

Re:Well, considering that iPhone... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107846)

So it took Apple YEARS to come up with an overpriced copy of LG's Prada?

Sounds like Apple needs to hire some people with better brains!

Copy or not (3, Insightful)

Shnyzx (786435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107892)

Wether you like it or not Apple didn't copy anybody (except from the perspective that everything is inherently copied). The design lifecycle of a product such as this is far to long for them to have copied the prada or any other new phone's design. If anything this should say something about the new current trend in cellular phones. As far as the lawsuit goes Apple is very good at weasling their way around definitions to put themselves in the right. I don't care how you look at it, but any phone that a customer has an active part in making the purchasing desicion (aka not a cheapo I need a phone model) is competing with one another. If I had a car called the Iphone and it really doesn't compete with the real cell phone, the name is misleading and shouldn't have been awarded to Apple. But I believe Cisco did the right thing, and heck they got some press and some money out of it to boot.

Re:Copy or not (1, Interesting)

geighaus (670864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108234)

Still mac enthusiasts call Vista an OSX clone forgetting that many Vista features appeared in the alpha versions of Vista way before they made it to OSX. Don't you love double standards.

Re:Copy or not (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108684)

Okay, I'll bite. Which features appeared in an alpha version of Vista before they appeared in any version of Mac OS X, and were then used to claim that Microsoft copied Mac OS X?

Re:Copy or not (0)

geighaus (670864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108808)

From the top of my head

- Sidebar
- Desktop search
Here is a review of Longhorn alpha from 2002. http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha .asp [winsupersite.com]

SIDEBAR? What are you smoking? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109542)

What on earth are you talking about? The only thing on OS X vaguely like Vista's "sidebar" is the dock, which comes from NeXTSTEP, and was in NeXTSTEP back when Microsoft and IBM were still fighting over OS/2.

Re:Copy or not (2, Insightful)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110186)

Also worth noting that the link to the alpha site mentions nothing of integrated desktop search at all. Even if it did, merely *saying* in 2002 that you are going to do this cool search thingie is not at all like actually designing and creating one.

You're kidding, right? (2)

Reverberant (303566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110680)

The "Sidebar" feature in that alpha was nothing like the Sidebar that eventually wound up in Vista or any feature in Mac OS X.

Indexed desktop search first appeared on Mac's in Mac OS 8.5 via Sherlock [wikipedia.org]

Try again.

Re:Copy or not (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110910)

Sidebar is from NeXT and was in Mac OS X in the form of Docklets, and what you call "desktop search" probably originated from BeOS, but the interface you see in Windows and Mac OS X clearly originated in Mac OS X.

Re:Copy or not (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111930)

Desktop search? You're kidding, right? Vista didn't come up with that one; both it and OS X "ripped it off" from BeOS (except Apple at least hired the Be programmer who wrote it in the first place)!

Apple can iSuck my nuts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107908)

I was hoping to see apple get iFucked in a lawsuite. They openly defy other companies when it comes to trademarks (cisco) or fields of business (apple recordings, "sosume") but then sue websites that post rumors about new products.

Jobs can go iFuck himself.

I love the product but hate the company.

Re:Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108014)

oh yeah, cause I'm sure Apple hadn't already started on the iPhone when the Prada was announced [lge.com]

seriously, even Apple couldn't pull off the iPhone in 1 month

Re:Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed... (2, Insightful)

bomanbot (980297) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108020)

Even though such a prototype takes more than a few months to design and thus neither Apple nor LG are likely to steal the design from each other, consider the following: Both devices use a huge touchscreen, which covers nearly the entire front of the device. What design can you rip off if your entire phone design only consists of one giant f***ing touchscreen with a speaker on top and a button underneath it? Well, the LG one has three buttons, but thats not the point ;-) See, there is only so much design you can do with those elements and this is the most obvious layout you can think of. And since every other phone on the planet is either silver or black even the similar color is a moot point. Maybe Apple can bring out another, beefier version in silver later and call it iPhone Pro or something ;-)

("Bill Bill Bill, Bill Bill Bill Bill...") (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108984)

Thank you... for considering the following.

Re:Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed... (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108022)

I think you need to look up "fact" in a dictionary... either that or call the Prada a rip off of Apple's Newton, given that they all they have in common is that they are black cuboid electical products with touch screens.

Re:Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed... (3, Informative)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108198)

Don't forget the NeoNode [neonode.com] , which has been out since July 2004 (or at least version 1 has).

As for the ripping off argument. It's usually absurd. Vague similarities become emotional touch points. Yes, it's true that a lot of people say everyone rips things off from Apple but that's just utter nonsense. Can you imagine if the idea of the icon on a desktop computer or other electronic devices with GUI interfaces was under the stewardship of one company. Many companies use ideas that have already been used by others, and often improve on them (i.e. the iPhone is, at least in my judgment, an improvement on many of things the NeoNode is), or add their own flair to it. I always say, "This will only be cool and great once Apple invents it."

You only have to look at the history of automobiles to see how cross creativity and innovation in action. You don't see many people going on about how Renault invented the dual overhead cam shaft so every other car company that uses DOHC engines RIPPED OFF RENAULT!

Re:Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18109624)

Here's how it goes:

    EVERYBODY rips off Apple
    Apple never rips off ANYBODY

Now drink your kool-aid and bow before The Leader.

Cisco? (2, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107876)

Doesn't Cisco face a possible lawsuit also in Canada over the name?

Re:Cisco? (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107978)

Sure if they haven't already settled, own the Canadian company in question, and or don't sell the Cisco "iPhone" in Canada.

That would be worth researching... you know if I cared enough not to wait for someone else to update Wikipedia.

First move to making it generic? (1, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107916)

Apple can win this one in the long term by making the term generic. There is no public confusion over the name, nobody but the most blatant Cisco shill or eBay fraudster would actaully mix up the two products (or 3 if you count the Canadian one).

After the first (non-3g) model's lifespan is over Apple can safely trademark the "iPhone 3G", "iPhone Nano" and all other variants, protecting their products while allowing the first part of the name to become generic. Once that happens, they could tell Cisco where to stick this deal.

Re:First move to making it generic? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18107960)

Yeah, brilliant idea. Portable digital music makers should do the same thing with the iPod name. After all only a blatant Apple shill would actually mix up the various iPods from different manufacturers. Right?

Or is trademark theft only cool when Apple does it?

Re:First move to making it generic? (0, Flamebait)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108042)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for calling out the elitist Apple Jacks -- the guys that jack off any time Apple sends out a press release.

Re:First move to making it generic? (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108476)

Cisco didn't own the trademark to begin with. So what are you talking about?

Re:First move to making it generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108564)

"Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years."

Apple tried to get away with trademark theft. They were caught. And now they are having to pay for their sleazy business practices.

Just like you tried to spread misinformation. You were caught. Now you are getting laughed at.

Re:First move to making it generic? (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108846)

If you actually cared to follow the thread before replying, you'd realize you've just replied to:

"Cisco didn't own the (iPod) trademark to begin with. So what are you talking about?"

with:

"Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years."

Re:First move to making it generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108926)

Oh look, it's a short bus rider posting from his OLPC...

When you get to school just get a grownup to explain things to you.

Re:First move to making it generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18110142)

>Apple can win this one in the long term by making the term generic.

They should send Cisco a box of iKleenex.

Re:First move to making it generic? (1)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111026)

into which they can snort iSnot.

Re:First move to making it generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114948)

This is my first post.I am a little confused. Apple initially called this suit Silly becasue no one would mistake the two products. However didn't Apple sue over the beatles use of thir name and logo. I have to believe that the two Ipones are probably more similar than coumpter software/hardware and Music. Given this, why is a microsoft topic represented by a cyborg Bill Gated and an Apple article represented by their corporate logo, why no cyborg there.

(sorry about any mispellings)

They call that... (2, Insightful)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 7 years ago | (#18107990)

"Cut the apple into two halves".

Re:They call that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18115056)

You can tell neither of them is the iPhone's real mother; the real one wouldn't let it be cut in two.

Come again? (2, Interesting)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108006)

(sic)and one over its touch-screen technology in the UK.
Touch screen technology is patented? I support two different brands of laptops that both use touch screens and I'm sure there are others out there. I don't believe they all use the same underylying configuration, but I could be wrong. Does anyone know if this patent only applies to phones, or to mobile devices in general? TFA doesn't really specify.

Re:Come again? (3, Informative)

Dielectric (266217) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108104)

Like just about every field today, touch-sensitive tech is a patent minefield. I'd be willing to bet the UK company is Quantum, which has a whole boatload of touch-patents. It could be a patent on the touch sense methods, or a patent on the use of a touch screen on a cell phone, or anything along those lines. Without more info, it's all just speculation of course, but this is Slashdot so I know I'm in good company.

Re:Come again? (4, Informative)

Andrewm1986 (1013059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108112)

The patent is about using conductivity to sense when a finger is touching the screen. So it is a specific type of touch screen

Re:Come again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113922)

Considering that the iPod uses the exact same concept for it's click-wheel (and that it's fairly obvious to anyone in the field that one would use conductivity to detect human contact on a surface), it would suck if that was the patent in question

How much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108034)

i wonder how much Apple had to give Cisco for that name.
Per phone or just a stack of million $?

The original (3, Informative)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108100)

Here is the original iPhone [streettech.com] . Infogear was purchased by Cisco in 2000, hence they inherited the iPhone name. I used to do tech support for these iPhones back in the day so I did feel some nostalgia when the name was revealed for Apple's new product. Infogear iPhone [archive.org]

Re:The original (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108172)

No one is saying that Cisco didn't have the iPhone name but trademarks without current products don't last long. In decmember Cisco suddenly announces a generic VOIP phone named iPhone. It had been years since Cisco had used that trademark. Apple had to have been in negotiations with Cisco when that product was released.

So Cisco finally compromised that they both can use the name. Apple might have thrown them a bone. but the iPhone trademark isn't Cisco's alone.

Re:The original (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109830)

In decmember Cisco suddenly announces a generic VOIP phone named iPhone

And in January, Apple suddenly announces an iPhone cell phone, and Apple still isn't shipping anything.

Seems to me whichever way you look at it, Cisco has priority: they were shipping in 2000, they announced a new product before Apple, and they are shipping before Apple.

I hope Apple got their butt kicked on this deal.

Re:The original (1)

trongey (21550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109420)

If that thing did DSL I wouldn't mind having one.

Total Victory (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108152)

Total Victory for Apple.

Apple gets to use the name without compensation and no one will remember Cisco's "IPhone" next year.
I guess Cisco's trademark must really have lapsed for them to have given up with nothing more than a "promise" to explore interoperability.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108202)

"Other terms of the agreement are confidential" says the article. We don't know if Apple got this for free, or if they paid $4bn, half their shares and free rides in Steve Jobs' personal Jet for it.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

vague disclaimer (861154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108920)

, or if they paid $4bn, half their shares

Actually we know it's not that big because that would *have* to be declared, being just a tad share price sensitive.

The acid test of "who won" is quite simple: in a year who will ever remember that Cisco once made a product called iPhone?

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109146)

The acid test of "who won" is quite simple: in a year who will ever remember that Cisco once made a product called iPhone?

Not necessarily. Cisco may have planned for this, and by relabelling one of their products an iPhone, were probably in a better position to get a better settlement. For them the iPhone name was just an easy way to get something out of Apple.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109302)

One thing they may have wanted from Apple, is for Apple to use Cisco/Linksys wireless technology in their systems. If Apple agreed to this then Cisco gets a lot from the deal. Looks like we will need to keep an eye out to what wireless hardware will be used in upcoming hardware.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110378)

Cisco doesn't make the hardware components that go into their VoIP devices or anyone else's. They do sell VoIP phones, both in the consumer market as Linksys and in the enterprise market. But really Cisco regards VoIP as just another application that increases demand for their real products, the big-iron infrastructure needed to support it all. Cisco wants to turn the iPhone into an application on top of Cisco's infrastructure. It seems likely that future versions of the iPhone will have VoIP support, so Cisco wants to ensure that the iPhone will be compatible with their infrastructure. The scenario is that you can walk into work, connect to the corporate WiFi and use the iPhone like your desk phone. Certain Nokia phones have apparently had this ability for about a year. More information here. [networkworld.com]

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18112526)

When I mentioned wireless, I was not thinking phones. I was thinking of Apple's Airport range of wireless products. Remember these are all rebranded with the Apple name and packaged in the Apple look. If Cisco could get Apple as a customer for these, then its an extra revenue stream for them - this is worth more than any money Apple would give them in a single settlement.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114482)

Whaaa? That seems a bit unlikely. Cisco sells directly competing products as Linksys. Yes, they'd make some money by rebranding Linksys products in Apple's name, but they'd make more money if they didn't have to give Apple a share.

That being said, this isn't really about the home user market -- that's peanuts to Cisco. Consumer devices have long been a commodity market so they don't get the same profit margins that they do on enterprise and infrastructure equipment. Cisco bought Scientific Atlanta and Linksys not as profit centers in themselves, but rather as the end points to a much larger IP-based network running Cisco equipment. They don't care about selling wireless routers for 35 bucks a pop, they want to sell the backbone equipment for thousands of dollars with a huge profit margin.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (2, Interesting)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109882)

That doesn't make sense. Cisco had the iPhone trademark before Apple, and Apple knew that. If Apple didn't want Cisco to be able to make demands on them, Apple could simply have called their phone something else and avoided the whole mess.

I think Apple provoked the whole dispute for publicity reasons.

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

ObiWanKenblowme (718510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18112328)

Apple also likely knew that any claim Cisco had on the trademark would be tenuous, at best. They also have this other product with a "i" prefix - maybe you've heard of it - so perhaps they wanted to associate their new iPhone with the strongly established iPod brand. Do you really think Apple needed to resort to a trademark dispute to drum up interest???

Re:Total Victory - Wrong! (1)

davidm00 (1067270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109886)

Cisco didn't relabel a product "iPhone", they purchased a company that had a product named "iPhone". Not really a master plan and I'm sure they didn't purchase a VOIP company just to get the name. If they did, settling this means a pretty poorly executed plan. Apple could have easily argued in court that the entire world calls their product iPhone. That would be hard for Cisco to fight since it's very, very true.

Re:Total Victory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108468)

Apple gets caught trying to steal another company's trademark and has to beg to be able to use it and ends up paying big time to do so.

Yeah, 'total victory' for Apple. What a pathetic loser that you put that in bold!

Re:Total Victory (1)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110956)

Apple gets caught trying to steal another company's trademark and has to beg to be able to use it and ends up paying big time to do so.

Where is the evidence? How much money? How do you know?

Yeah, 'total victory' for Apple. What a pathetic loser that you put that in bold!

And what a pathetic loser would AC this in the first place and not stand up to it, plus base an argument on air. It's fine to speculate on whether money changed hands, but to castigate a post based on total speculation is not logical.

n other news.... (5, Funny)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108196)

Apple has successfully trademarked the letter that comes just after h in the alphabet. Use of sayd letter eys prohybyted and people can face hefty fynes eyf caught do'n so. Onlyne experts recommend people to start dystancyng themselves from g whyle they're at yet.

Re:n other news.... (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108286)

Your slashdot nick is breaking the trademark. Remove your account immediately.

Re:n other news.... (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108880)

Apple has successfully trademarked the letter that comes just after h in the alphabet. Use of sayd letter eys prohybyted and people can face hefty fynes eyf caught do'n so. Onlyne experts recommend people to start dystancyng themselves from g whyle they're at yet.


You have been caught usyng sayd letter n your post, ryght before "the alphabet." You now face a hefty fyne.

Sumer ys ycumyng yn... (2, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109446)

Not my cup of Chaucer, but whatever flyps your swytches.

Re:n other news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114700)

Fortunately, the G String exists as prior art, so the letter G is safe.

I hope.

Big deal. (1, Troll)

Runefox (905204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108210)

The phone's still as expensive as a PS3, and half as functional. Since the damned thing is practically one big touch screen, you'd constantly be wiping off the smudges every time you make a call. And, as I've said before, no GSM accessibility around these parts, so it's entirely worthless to me, anyway, though even without that factor, I wouldn't buy one. Hell, you can get a decent laptop for that kind of money, and a laptop is so much more useful than this is.

Pass.

Re:Big deal. (-1, Troll)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108348)

...man, I knew putting the Blu Ray drive in the cell phone was a bad idea...

The good news is that they include a Reality Distortion Field inside every iPhone, so you don't even care about spending 1/2 a weeks salary on something that will still drop calls when you're in the elevator.

PS. Hey you, yea you, with the mod points. Why don't you actually reply to this with your ideas instead of just editorializing by modding me down? I only say this because lets face it, anyone that DARE speak the slightest ill of the Cult of Jobs gets handed their charred karma and asked to leave.

And it never fails (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108482)

You fucking pansies.

Deal with reality.

Losers.

I'm going to keep doing this.... (0, Flamebait)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109274)

...So that you morons will waste all your mod points.

It's not my fault that you have no concept of what the moderation system is for. Here's a clue: It's not there for you to editorialize the comments. That's not why it was intended, and if you're using it that way, you're contributing to the cheapening of this community. Why do you even care about Slashdot if you don't care to use it properly.

You're probably the same kind of person that checks Wikipedia and rolls back edits every time they change something that you personally wrote.

So go ahead, mod this -2 Troll. You know you want to. Waste those points so that other people with contradictory opinions can be heard without fearing that some idiot who can't express ideas with his own words will take his aggression out on them.

Re:I'm going to keep doing this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18112002)

Oh, please, keep picking on the moderators. Because there's such a SHORTAGE of mod points that they won't "waste" them on someone spouting flamebait.

And yes, your original post was flamebait. Insinuating that everyone who likes a given product must be stupid is rude.

Re:I'm going to keep doing this.... (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18112224)

How did I insinuate they were stupid?

Re:I'm going to keep doing this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18115656)

You suggested that someone who "didn't mind" paying the cost of this particular product must be under the influence of distorted reality.

The RDF used to be funny, but there's been an unusual amount of senseless vitriol against Apple customers lately, and it's being used as if it were a serious criticism. That insinuates that people who decide they like Apple products are just too stupid to evade the RDF.

And sure, it didn't help to bait moderators like that. The moderation system has been unchanged for years, and complaining about it has gotten us nowhere for years. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

Re:Big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18108844)

Hmm.. really? Tell me, where can I get a PS3 or a laptop that has the following features:

Make phone calls
Send & receive text messages
Function as a portable music player
Function as a PDA, too
Browse the web
Multi-touch screen interface
A UI that is actually good
Fit in my pocket (or a belt holster)

By the way, you may be a cheapass, but for some people, spending a little money isn't a big barrier to getting the form & function they desire. I wouldn't buy a PS3 for $100, and there's no laptop in the world that can work adequately as a mobile phone.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109130)

The answer to all this on the PS3 is Linux, though I don't recommend it.

Make phone calls
Skype.

Send & receive text messages
MSNIM, YIM, AIM, etc., plus e-mail

Function as a portable music player
Winamp.

Function as a PDA, too
Outlook.

Browse the web
Firefox.

Multi-touch screen interface
Tablet PC. (though that would be expensive, and that's probably the most expensive part of the iPhone. Is this really necessary?)

A UI that is actually good
Debatable on the iPhone's side of things, but most PC interfaces are fairly decent.

Fit in my pocket (or a belt holster)
The iPhone's freaking huge for a phone.

By the way, you may be a cheapass, but for some people, spending a little money isn't a big barrier to getting the form & function they desire. I wouldn't buy a PS3 for $100, and there's no laptop in the world that can work adequately as a mobile phone.

By the way, you may be rolling in cash, but for some people, $499 USD minimum is a massive amount of money to spend on something as fucking trivial as a phone, and if you find that you absolutely have to have one, then you're a complete and total moron. Case in point:

My $200 USD LG-8100 (an already expensive piece of hardware) does the following:
-Contact list
-Web browsing
-E-Mail/Text messaging
-IM
-Image, MP3, multimedia
-Calendar functions
-Alarm functions
-Fits in my pocket
-Has a decent interface
-Is more than 50% less in terms of cost than the iPhone, the only major difference being no OS-X/fancy effects, no high gloss finish, and no touch screen. Big fucking deal. The iPhone offers nothing special that would prompt me, a student, to go out and blow more than a quarter of my student loans on a piece of Apple hardware that has no functionality that I don't already have, especially when I could get something far more useful for that kind of money.

My point? It's going to sell to people like you because it's shiny, and it's Apple. There's nothing inherently special about the iPhone, and unless you can give me a compelling reason to believe otherwise, I doubt my position will change anytime soon.

Re:Big deal. (1)

ObiWanKenblowme (718510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110738)

Okay, so your argument is essentially that a person is a "complete and total moron" if they purchase anything non-essential that's outside the budget of a student on a presumably limited income? Forgive me if I don't share your opinion.

Re:Big deal. (1)

dwhittington (577769) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111984)

D00d. I think I'm going to patent a screen cleaner for the iPhone to clean the smudgies off. That's the ticket!

Re:Big deal. (2, Funny)

moochfish (822730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113762)

But the iPhone is less than 1/10th of a PowerEdge 2900 [dell.com] ($7k)! And the PowerEdge doesn't even come with a touch screen!
But the iPhone is less than 1/100th of a 2007 BMW M5 [yahoo.com] ($80k)! And it's 1000th of the size!
But the iPhone is less than 1/100000th of No. 5, 1948 [wikipedia.org] ($140M)! And the iPhone can take pictures!

And finally...

The iPhone is as expensive as a Boba Fett Blaster Signature Edition Prop Replica [entertainmentearth.com] ($679.99), and 10 times as functional!

How can you pass??

Glad that's over (1)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108400)

I was SOOOOOO worried that the two multi-billion-dollar corporations might drag on this free ad-fest for the rest of the year. Now we can go back to worrying if Vista users are secure. Huzah!

Cisco-Apple plaintext summary (2, Funny)

viking2000 (954894) | more than 7 years ago | (#18108478)

Apple boardroom: Let's just call it iPhone, and let it go as it may. Keep blabbing with Cisco so they think we are negotiating. They don't have a case anyway.

Cisco boardroom: We have to get on the consumer bandwagon, so lets use this trademark to force Apple to help us even if we don't really have a good case. Tell the media that we are almost in agreement.

Apple boardroom: The blabbing with Cisco resulted in an agreement that basically means nothing. At least they think they have something and have backed off.

Cisco boardroom: The "explore opportunities" agreement is of course worhtless, but maybe we can fool our stockholders at least that we got a good thing going here.

Re:Cisco-Apple plaintext summary (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18109870)

The specific details are confidential. You really think Cisco would have taken the settlement if all it had was Apple's empty promise to explore opportunities? Quite likely, the actual deal covers specific partnerships in the future that neither company wants to get out. I suspect very strongly that it has to do with future VOIP capability in the iPhone, which Cisco wants to ensure will be compatible with their enterprise VOIP equipment. Apple has a big reason not to discuss that publicly, because their cellular partners (eg, Cingular) don't want to encourage VOIP.

And It's Apple For The Win! (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110062)

So rather than a cut of profits, Cisco gets to share the name, eh? Oh yeah, like when you hear "iPhone" later this spring anybody is going to be thinking of Cisco! But at least interoperability with a product that no one is going to buy, namely the Cisco iPhone, should be pretty easy to achieve. Sorry, I'm no Apple fanboy, but in this case, it appears that Apple definitely got the better part of this deal which probably means Cisco's lawyers didn't feel they had a strong case.

Show me the money before you make the argument. (2, Interesting)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111158)

A number of posts here are alluding to Apple's payment of large amounts of money to Cisco. They argue that Apple "lost" because of this large payment of money, in one post up to $4 billion. My question is:

What money? How much money? How do you know? Where's the evidence?

Or are you just basing your arguments on idle speculation of what you wish would have happened?

A Theory: The Tom Sawyer Gambit (2, Interesting)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18112012)

This is just a theory, a possibility. I don't insist upon it. I'm just trying to fit what we know into the framework without idle speculation that Apple paid money to Cisco, which I doubt. Arguments that they did are based on thin air. We do not know.

What if Apple used the Tom Sawyer Gambit?

Apple knows, of course, that Cisco has "the trademark" for iPhone, but it isn't a very good one. Why not? Because Cisco inherited it and did nothing with it. I suspect it was a "TM" trademark, not a "R-circle" trademark. A "TM" trademark is provisional. Once you get it you must demonstrate that you are serious by USING that trademark in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. If you do, then after a certain number of years you get on the coveted "register," (hence "R" with a circle around it.) Once you are on "the register" with your trademark, it's a lot harder to unseat you from owning that mark. But it's a "you use or you lose" proposition. Until you get there, you are vulnerable to losing the mark altogether. Apple knows this, too.

Apple would also like very much to be completely interoperable with Cisco equipment. Why? Because Cisco dominates the corporate market big time, and has a huge segment of the consumer market with LinkSys. But for one reason or another, Cisco isn't really that interested in Apple. Their focus is elsewhere, though VOIP is big, they just aren't thinking Apple is a potential player here. Apple can strut all it wants, but Cisco is looking the other way thinking Apple is just a toy.

Hmm, how to get Cisco's attention? Dangle "iPhone" in front of them like a carrot on a stick. "Hey, guys! I got your iPhone. Come chase me!" Big announcement, slap it up there in lights, and Apple runs like hell, but not too fast.

Bang!

Cisco bites the Apple, just like Eve, and sues. Publicity for both parties, bad or good, just spell my name right. Apple grins, begins negotiations. You'll notice it never got to court. "Hey, Cisco! You didn't use the mark. Your loss is our gain, but hey. We'll cooperate. How bout if we agree to partner up with you to make sure iPhone is compatible with all your, you know, stuff? We're gonna sell a billion of these things. Wanna be part of it? Oh, and you can keep using the mark, of course, if you have a product to stick it on, (snicker)."

So here's Apple, like Tom Sawyer, munching on a Red Delicious while his frie..., er, business partners, paint the fence for him.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>