Cisco v. Apple II: AM followup on trademark lawsuit

Like they didn't know what they were doing when they registered it. If you make an iAnything, you are acknowledging in some form that you are riding on Apple's coattails, by making an accessory/compliment for an existing iProduct. The physical equivalent of cybersquatting.

Those guys at Cisco are going to feel pretty stupid when come June, these phones are lasered "MacPhone" on the back.

(Seriously, why not? MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, Mac Mini, MacPhone.)

Actually, it shows that Apple ISN'T being petty when it comes to the cease & desists over "iPod" sounding names.

The whole reason Cisco might lose here is because they HAVEN'T defended their trademark the way Apple has done with iPod.

As this story says, there are 5 other companies using some variation of "IPHONE" and the failure to take action could be taken as a loss rights to the mark.

Jump on the childish karma meme all you like, but it shows that companies either have to defend their marks or lose them.

Even Digg, beloved of the 12 year olds fond of posting the "Apple suckz 'cause they have teh lawyers" comments, has been sending many cease & desists to sites like "digggames.com."

Well, let's see ... if someone else used one of Apple's trademarked names they would just look the other way, right? Oh, wait, they send in a team of lawyers at the mere mention of the word "pod".

Maybe there is karma in the world after all?

I just read Cisco's blog on the suit. Their motives become transparent.

Cisco wasn't looking to "protect its intellectual property." What it wanted was to be a part of the iPhone. It wanted "collaboration." It wanted to tell Apple how to make its product!

You really think Steve was going to acquiesce to that?!?

"If Infogear/Linksys/Cisco had a three-year lapse in using "iPhone" for a product at any time between 1996 and today, that's abandonment."

This is excellent news. Anyone else fancy starting a company with me to make a product called the Newton MessagePad? :)

So Apple new there would be a problem and so they entered into negotiations with Cisco. So Apple knew there could be a problem. Then Apple announces their new cell phone and uses a name that's not theirs.

Sounds open and shut to me.

Apple's not so big that it can ignore the law. They make a great computer, an OK incompatible OS, and a decent music player with a stolen interface.

I agree that the suit is mostly silly. I can solve the problem. Cisco keeps iPhone (for use with VOIP) and Apples keeps iPhone for cellular.

Wonder how long it will be before Skype runs on the Apple iPhone?

honestly beyond getting some $$$ from APPL (ad i dont balme them there) i dont knwo what Cisco wants. The name of thier product was nearly 0 inbrand power since rumors of the iPhone took to the net. It doesnt matter what apples product is actually called or who actually owns the trademark the point is iPhone is in reality apple's jsut because people recognize the porduct as such. IF apple never even used the term iPhone themselves, it would still be a damned iPhone... nothing Cisco OR Apple does will change that its out of thier hands. Cisco should get some $$$ but the iPhone moniker will never, ever be synonomous with Cisco or anyone else's product - it will always be with apple's product.

Apple's so cocky,

I hope cisco wins!!!

The rightful owner of the trademark.

Apple doesn't care if the name is trademarked for them and they don't care that 5 other companies have iPhone products because everyone knows Apple 'owns' the iPhone name. Nokia or Moto or anyone else would never release an iPhone because it would have 0 brand power. People hear iPhone and they think Apple.