Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Mac OS forum

General discussion

Cisco has sued Apple for infringing its iPhone trademark.

by Kiddpeat / January 10, 2007 2:47 PM PST


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Cisco has sued Apple for infringing its iPhone trademark.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Cisco has sued Apple for infringing its iPhone trademark.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Not unexpected...
by boya84 / January 11, 2007 12:10 AM PST

The conspiracy theorist in me says this is a marketing ploy to get even more press for it...

Collapse -
It's the arrogance that is breathtaking.
by Kiddpeat / January 11, 2007 12:40 AM PST
In reply to: Not unexpected...

I thought only Microsoft tried to rip off other companies. Guess not.

However, MS is smart enough not to take on someone who is 2 or 3 times bigger than they are. Chuckle.

Collapse -
Ahhh, so it's about that huh?
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 12:53 AM PST

Always looking to stir up the Microsoft is better than apple conversation. Sad

Whatever... We could talk about the international courts where Microsoft has been sued but that isn't anything like this now is it?

Collapse -
No, it's not. It's merely pointing out the arrogance and
by Kiddpeat / January 11, 2007 2:30 AM PST

hypocracy. IP is good as long as it belongs to Apple. If it doesn't, Apple/Jobs simply ignore it.

Not really at all surprising.

Collapse -
So why make the comparison to begin with?
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 4:16 AM PST

I believe I said the same thing when I mentioned Steve's Ego without a Microsoft reference to be seen.

Arrogance and hypocrisy is a basic description of any successful industrialist's behavior during some part of their career. The terms apply just as much to Bill Gates' empire as it does to Apple.

Collapse -
Because Apple fans LOVE to accuse MS of this sort of thing
by Kiddpeat / January 11, 2007 6:05 AM PST

as you have so readily demonstrated. When it is Apple, the faithful tend to turn a blind eye.

Collapse -
You are the only one who ever complains.
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 6:27 AM PST

You are always ranting about how unfair apple enthusiasts are to Microsoft but I never see these glaring inequities that you complain of. I don't see the army of PC magazines constantly touting apple over MS... if anything, you should be complaining on the Linux boards. However, I don't see mac or Linux users going over to PC boards and telling MS users how deluded they are.

The only thing I do see here, is one individual who complains constantly about a company who, quite honestly, has a miniscule market share compared to the business you are constantly defending! Why are you so worried about the way apple users perceive Microsoft?

Apple users just drive you up the wall, don't they? You think we should form a lynch mob because Steve Jobs has used a name he doesn't have rights to... news flash for you here... most of us don't care! It will work itself out. In the meantime I have better things to do than worry about how Bill Gates and Steve Jobs compare to each other.

Really KP, take up knitting or meditation or something. Your trying to prove a point to people who don't think it's that big a deal.


Collapse -
You are right Grim.
by Kiddpeat / January 11, 2007 4:29 PM PST

I'm just too focused on the truth.

Collapse -
(NT) As you see it.
by mrmacfixit Forum moderator / January 11, 2007 9:00 PM PST
In reply to: You are right Grim.
Collapse -
and, in this case, as most of the world sees it.
by Kiddpeat / January 12, 2007 3:23 AM PST
In reply to: As you see it.

There's no question that Apple is now forever tarred with a blatant attempt to rip off Cisco's trademark. Further, we know they did it deliberately and with forethought. They simply think that, legally, they can get away with it. Perhaps, but they've already lost on the moral issue.

Apple seems to think they can take whatever they like. That's, historically, what they've done, and, here, they are doing it again.

Collapse -
Forever tarred?
by grimgraphix / January 12, 2007 3:40 AM PST

Forever Tarred...Blatant attempt...deliberately and with forethought... moral issue?

Boy, you do love hyperbole.

Collapse -
You seem to have a problem with the obvious Grim. Try a
by Kiddpeat / January 15, 2007 2:37 AM PST
In reply to: Forever tarred?
Collapse -
If you read the posts below...
by grimgraphix / January 15, 2007 4:58 AM PST
In reply to: Forever tarred?

... you will see I have posted some similar article links.

Cell phones to me are not as necessary as to other folks. The only multipurpose tool I give a darn about is my Swiss Army knife (the model with the locking blade for safety sake).

I do have to wonder if Jobs can deliver on this one... and I wonder about the practicality of the design and its durability. Either way, I ain't buying one anyway. I pay $100.00 a year for my yearly tracfone contract and end up with extra minutes left over at the renewal time. My only splurge/preference is I had a one piece phone and traded up to the folding model to avoid dialing in my pocket during those rare times I actually leave it on.

I am much more intrigued by the appleTV unit. If it can deliver all its advertised to do at the 300 dollar price range then I will consider getting one of them. $500.00 for a phone though? No thank you.


Collapse -
This has nothing to do with arrogance,
by boya84 / January 11, 2007 6:25 AM PST

and everything to do with marketing.

That said, both the Steve and the Bill are regularly accused of being arrogant... but I *think* we can agree that neither is stupid...

The drama leading up to the announcement, the non-signing of the agreement and abrupt (day before MacWorld) discontinuing of legal communications... it is all too convenient.

Collapse -
I saw that!
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 12:25 AM PST

I sometimes think one could make a japanese monster movie staring Steve Jobs ego.

"No Steve... you have to get permission BEFORE you announce"

You gotta give him points for enthusiasm though. Wink


Collapse -
Regardless of what they call it,
by boya84 / January 11, 2007 1:27 AM PST
In reply to: I saw that!

the "pinch" (zoom in/out on web page or image), the "random voice mail access", the screen scrolling method, and the various sensors and their associated uses (including the auto wide/portrait screen change) are pretty darned cool.

I'm just not a touch-screen person (except the airport self-check-in kiosks)... they get streaky/finger-printy...

Collapse -
I worry about durability.
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 2:21 AM PST

A while back in a different job I sold video camcorders, a few of which had touch screen view finders. After awhile I saw some of them coming back due to dead areas on parts of the screens and in one case a screen that had cracked when it was dropped. Granted it was 5 years ago and there have been improvements I'm sure... otherwise they would have quit using them. I sure the open screen design will have the accessories market scrambling to design carry cases for them.

I'm basically not a cell phone nor an iPod kind of guy though so it is hard for me to get too excited. I carry a pay by the minute Tracfone that is only on when I'm calling out. The technology fascinates me but would I buy one? Probably not.


Collapse -
In the keynote, the Steve says
by boya84 / January 11, 2007 5:07 AM PST
In reply to: I saw that!

the phone will be available in June.

Is it just me or does this ("abruptly stopping communications with Cisco on Monday") sound like a potentially affordable way to keep some buzz about the product for 4 months or so... without having to pay for actual advertising...? I have a feeling there is already a searched and Apple-trademarked name waiting in the wings... and it will be applied 2-4 weeks before the phone is actually available - and Apple will again abruptly decide that Cisco was right all along, "so never mind, you can have iPhone, we never wanted it, anyway..." and then the next round of press will be that the product was renamed...

Collapse -
I don't know...
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 6:37 AM PST

... it certainly seemed like a done deal when it was announced that the lawyers had the paper work ready to be signed... as Steve was revealing the new stuff. Maybe Cisco decided to double the price at the last minute or some other deal breaker. Maybe Apple messed up.

I would be decidedly surprised if apple didn't have a stand by name. The Steve has always been a grand standing contemporary version of PT Barnum in his own way... lets just hope he didn't assume we were born suckers.

I was reading this article... 20 things we don't know about the iPhone
Jobs unveils Apple's 'magical' new gadget, but can he make lingering doubts disappear?
and it does raise some interesting points about all the technical roadblocks apple has to meet to make this product work. I would hate to see this end up being like the Newton... or worse yet... the Zune. Wink


Collapse -
How about this for a reason
by mrmacfixit Forum moderator / January 11, 2007 7:20 AM PST
In reply to: I don't know...

This is a cut and past from MDN.

"Stop listening to all the claptrap about Apple and Cisco and what Cisco really wants: monetary damages, stopping the iPhone and the like," jim Cramer writes for RealMoney.

Cramer writes, "Cisco doesn't want royalties on iPhone. Cisco could care less about keeping the name iPhone. These theories are all wrong. Cisco's trying to get cool. It isn't cool now."

Cramer writes, "Here's the deal: I believe that what Cisco really wants is to have Apple open up the Apple TV device -- the just-announced set-top box that streams video from your PC to your TV -- and other products for Cisco to interface with."


Collapse -
by Kiddpeat / January 11, 2007 4:34 PM PST

Cisco says they want to control, and be paid for the use of their, trademark, but I guess this guy knows better. Riiggghhhttt!

Collapse -
(NT) We'll see how it pans out
by mrmacfixit Forum moderator / January 11, 2007 8:59 PM PST
In reply to: Chuckle.
Collapse -
Well, there is some strategy afoot here
by grimgraphix / January 11, 2007 10:02 PM PST

Certainly this is the kind of mistake that should not occur. Both sides have been in business to long for such a rookie mistake and too many people are paid to make sure all rights to a trademarked name are established and licensed.

It's ironic but after I read your post I noticed one of the first Cisco commercials on TV that I can remember seeing. It was less than gripping Wink

I can buy into Cisco trying to leverage some influence in the AppleTV box. Overall, I think that device could have more impact and market share potential than a cell phone. The Apple box represents a lifestyle device that combines wireless connectivity for streaming media to your TV, and a Tivo type hard drive for what I see as a very low price. The cellphone is very pricey and despite provider discounts still out of the affordability range of most people.

Any which way it shakes out, I find it disingenuous of one or both of the companies to claim innocence and damage when it was reported that both sides lawyers had the paperwork in hand waiting for signatures as the keynote speech was being made.


Collapse -
Interesting discussion of both companies positions here...
by grimgraphix / January 13, 2007 1:59 AM PST

In the nascent trademark battle over the name "iPhone," Apple has countered Cisco's lawsuit by claiming that the term could be considered generic, and would not confuse customers.

Cisco sued Apple on January 10, claiming that in launching the iPhone at the Macworld conference, Apple is infringing on Cisco's trademark.

Although Apple's predicted move into cell phones has unofficially been called iPhone for years -- given that many of Apple's products begin with a lowercase "i," including iMac, iPod, and iLife -- Cisco obtained the trademark in 2000 after the acquisition of InfoGear, which had been granted the original trademark in 1996.

In its response to Cisco's lawsuit, Apple is now claiming that it is the first company to use the term iPhone to apply to a cell phone.

I personally have to believe that Cisco has the stronger position here simply because they hold the actual trademark.

I am still mystified by what last minute glitch messed up the deal though. By both companies admission in pre mac-keynote speech publicity releases, they had drawn up papers and were ready to sign


oh... here are 2 tech articles from yahoo that give some interesting background about apples new cell phone. Keep in mind, since tghey are yahoo links they probably won't stay up forever.

Apple iPhone: Coolest Features, Biggest Obstacles


Did Apple Borrow the iPhone Design from Someone Else?
Collapse -
Do you think....
by whizkid454 / January 14, 2007 11:02 AM PST

Apple should have waited until later to announce the "mobile device"... That way they could have more time to make a deal with Cisco and maybe could have straightened things out. Apple is just shooting themselves in the foot on this one, IMO. I'm not sure if you have seen the other possible names but some of them are pretty good as well: iTalk, iMobile, etc.

Collapse -
According to The Steve's keynote
by boya84 / January 15, 2007 3:35 AM PST
In reply to: Do you think....

They could not wit because the phone went to the FCC for approval - and Apple preferred making the announcement rather than through the FCC... That said, it is too bad they are stuck in EDGE rather than UMTS... (or 1xEvDO).

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!