I'm sure by now everyone has heard of the Cisco Systems, Inc. vs. Apple Computer, Inc. for trademark infringement of "iPhone". This is a really childish case & waste of money, IMO. I believe it was said on the news that Cisco would have probably let Apple use the trademark had they asked. You'd think a company as old as Apple would have a legal department with some competence in it. It was Apple's responsibility to check trademarks before naming the product.

I explained this case to someone like in a way like this: If I go and create a coffee brand called Starbucks, but sold different coffee flavours, either way, I'm still going to get my butt dragged to court for copyright/trademark infringement. Can I say that I didn't know "Starbucks" was already a registered trademark? NO! I should have checked beforehand but didn't.

I have to side with Cisco on this one. Apple clearly broke the law. They never asked for permission to do it and Cisco deserves to sue Apple for whatever amount they please. If Apple would have asked, they probably would have gotten the thumbs up from Cisco to use it (of course, it would probably come with a royalty fee), but they chose to "steal" it. All Cisco is doing is protecting what is theirs. They have every right to. Maybe for once, Apple could re-name it, the Apple Phone. I'd say "Apple Talk" but that's a networking protocol for Macs to talk to Windows and Windows to talk to Macs.

Edit

Quote I found on Cisco's press release:


Link to official press release: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_0...tml?CMP=ILC-001

[N]F

 

 

 

Reply

You just have to wonder how companies of this calibre can do that kind of screw-ups. IPhone is quite a generic name and even if it wasn't you'd think it's a standard procedure to check if your new product name has already been trademarked.

Cisco is in position to potentially pump a lot money from Apple. Apple's iPhone has already got a lot of publicity and the big marketing machine has been started. I bet Apple won't be changing the name easily and would pay for the name a hefty sum.

Reply

I've got to say that most companies who do something similar to what Cisco did (you know, sue someone because of a name that they thought belonged to them) are rather pathetic. I mean, come on! It's just a name. These companies really don't have to fall head over heels in pain over such a small legal issue. But on the other hand, it is a good opportunity for the suer (aka Cisco) to earn some big bucks out of Apple.

And yes, while I agree with nightfox that Apple clearly broke the law, it just seems rather childish to see these companies fighting over something like this. In fact, it seems even more childish that there are laws to protect a certain brand name. I'm starting to think this plagiarism thing is getting out of hand.

Reply

Couldn't Apple just name it iTalk or something instead of iPhone?

xboxrulz

Reply

Hehe ...NO is the answer because Italk is used as a product name by many companies..a quick google and I found pages and pages of different products..mainly Voip systems or mobile phone companies..so they will be stepping on other companies toes...

Why not call it IHype?

Reply

or just call it iParle (from French for talk) or iVoco (latin for call)

xboxrulz

Reply

If anything, this radio station I was streaming today brought this lawsuit up and the host said that Apple might re-brand it as Apple Phone like they did Apple TV. I think they were going to call it "iTV" but again, legal issues came up and so they fell back to Apple TV.

[N]F

Reply

Well of course you can't forget Microsoft little hand in this, remember they own a good size chunk of Apple stock. Of course Apple is trying to be like Microsoft and bend all the rules about copyrights and all that good stuff. But I say if Cisco was smart they sell the name, it's not like they are using it or anything.

Reply

Linksys uses it for the Linksys iPhone: http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c...FVisitorWrapper

[N]F

Reply

Apple should have trademarked anything starting with the lower case i and having to do with interactivity or filed a business process patent for things using the internet start with a lower case i followed by a capital letter....

Given how screwy the business patent process is now, Apple probably could have gotten it approved.

Reply