Cisco's General Counsel blogs about the iPhone suit

Seems like that Blog is censoring posts - or he's inundated with comments. Neverthless almost 24 hours and I don't see my comments, I noted about their brand:
"Interesting read - but I'm confused about any intentions to 'interoperate in the future'; especially garnering the differences in brand and design. Your iPhone line and the Cisco line does not reach the same target demographic, the design and aesthetic is a drastic contrast, and it seems so about the user experience. While you have the name, I don't see anything you have to offer to support that device in the future for innovation.

This is not apple fanboy talk, I love my big beautiful cisco router - the Creative Director in me doesn't see a marriage between these two devices, though, or the brand of these two companies, save an issue with a name. I support protecting intellectual property - it just seems foolish that there would be any balance between the two, and that area of arguement seems moot. There must be an alterior reason, a company as expansive as Cisco wouldn't be that naive when it looks into the marketing realm, would it? You paid for the name, but Apple burned the 'i' into american lexicon - and the brands are very contrasting."

Boy oh boy this one is really sorting out the ordinary folk from the zealots.

"For the majority of consumers, a product called iSomething is related to be from Apple and that since the first iMac."

This trademark has been registered since 1996,two years before the release of the iMac.

"Cisco's argument runs completely counter to the basic premise of trademark law. They wanted to use their trademark to sow confusion in the marketplace in the hopes that they could piggy-back on the iPhones success."

Umm... except that the iPhone has been a shipping product for years.

The fact is that Apple's messed up. You don't just announce a product using someone else's registered trademark for a product that's shipping and expect them to say "yeah, Apple, sure, you have it!". Idiocy.

2 year contract with Cingular, and THEN a cost of $499 or $599 + deposit ..

This phone isn't revolutionizing anything. It's using the older EDGE technology, and there will be better phones with more features out before this phone even gets out.

That said.. Cisco HAS the trademark. Cisco has the product line coming out. Most people don't know this or seem to not pay any attention, but Cisco has quietly been building VOIP infrastructures into the businesses they've been wiring up, including WIFI VPN/VOIP style access to both the voice and Data sides of businesses. They've been doing a ton of work that really DOES revolutionize the Phone, and that is using the iPhone moniker.

Stop pretending like Apple's the only company that can innovate. Cisco owns the trademark, and will likely take it far further and far more innovative than Apple possibly can.

Apple used the trademark by fiat , without permission. They need to lose.

Oh man! This iPhone skirmish is great BSchool theater. I wish I were the proverbial fly on the wall in each companies strategy sessions. I'm betting though, Apple wins & makes a nice hot apple pie using Crisco :)

I have been dealing with general Mums and Dads that for over 8 months have been asking when the iPhone is coming. These requests are not from the atypical Apple computer nerds, they are from ordinary people.
Most peopel even think iTrips are products Apple makes. I have to explain to them that they are made by Griffin Technology.

Cisco have no value in the intellectual property of 'iPhone'. It IS a bad form of trademark squatting. Wasn't this name even acquired by acquisition of another company.

From your complaint:
>> 29. Apple’s use of Cisco’s mark is likely to cause confusion,
>> mistake, or deception in the minds of the public.

should read
>> 29. Cisco's use of Infogears mark is likely to cause confusion,
>> mistake, or deception in the minds of the public over the Apple iPhone.

Cisco you need to ask yourselves. Are you really doing the right thing here?

Cisco you've lost my respect. You make me sick!

What do you mean gr33n? The term "Intellectual Property" covers a wide range of property including trade marks, copyright and patents.

I agree with Carroll. A trademark is not a crowbar for opening up someone else's intellectual property. It's there to avoid confusion in the marketplace and to protect property. Cisco's argument runs completely counter to the basic premise of trademark law. They wanted to use their trademark to sow confusion in the marketplace in the hopes that they could piggy-back on the iPhones success.

Apple probably wanted this to be about money and nothing else. And by turning it into a legal case, that's what it has now become. Cisco has no further hope of getting access to Apple's technology so they now need to decide whether to licence the name to Apple, sell the name to Apple or prevent Apple from using the name. Which is probably wanted Apple wanted the issue to be about from the start. Apple no doubt strung Cisco along because they didn't want word to get out.

Mmm, I don't understand. For the majority of consumers, a product called iSomething is related to be from Apple and that since the first iMac. Cisco knew this from the start. Also, if they didn't want to share this trademark, they had just to say NO from the very start and don't let the hope persist until after the keynote, it's unfair (or it's just busyness). Ho! one more thing(!), I think that if Apple wasn't totally sure about the agreement with Cisco they wouldn't kept iPhone.
Cisco looks like jealous. Waiting to see if you friend toy is better than yours. This is not about intellectual property. As n°14 said, it is absolutely about money. Boooo! Cisco.

Seems straightforward enough. I wonder what on earth Apple was thinking?

--

Um. Pay Cisco 20 mil to fuck off, and then go on to revolutionize the Phone?

Hey....I'm partial to the iPhone name, but if Apple does have to change the name, they should just follow the name that the web gave it after Cisco came out with their iPhone...call it the ApplePhone. I know it's not as pretty, but they are already naming devices that way....

itv ---> tv
iPhone ---> phone