24 total posts
I'm going to invent a new gaming console
Gonna call it the xRhombus 720.
It's kinda fanboy-ish...
But I couldn't help but feel the same thing about Sony making a move like this...
Its a US suit because they hold the US mark. But Apple holds the most of the trademarks overseas. They can just as easily countersue in Europe. They have to work something out.....and Cisco knew they had Apple over a barrel with the intro being this week.
Cisco is not going to want to buy Apple's marks overseas so they are just working out language and "partnerships". Cisco is just ramping up pressure.
I totally agree with you.
It's sad, but true...
Actually the way I had seen it is that if anyone comes out with a tech gadget and sticks an i in front of it - iradio, itelevision, iphone - it will make consumers immediately think of Apple and the ipod. Which makes me think that anyone other than Apple naming something an iphone knew exactly what they were doing, trying to use buzz from other products to get theirs noticed. I'm not exactly feeling sorry for them - it was their choice to try and snag the name and it's been rumor'd to be an Apple upcoming product for some time.
That doesn't matter though. They owned the trademark much before the Apple iPhone rummer came out.
Cisco had it in 2000
If I do my math correctly, that was before the iPod and even OS X. The iMac came out a year or so before Cisco got the name. However, that was still before the iCraze.
You always hear about people getting sued by Apple, Inc. for 'stealing' the click-wheel or copying the shuffle or whatev. So why should apple just get to steal someone else's product just because they are a huge company. So Monopolistic.
correction: capitalistic :P
Worry about it when it is launched
Apple used the name everyone has been using for the Keynote. The FCC submission and launch have still to happen. Let's see the nems then. I am sure they will have sorted everything out with Cisco by then.
Okay, here's the deal
I'm complete and total Apple fanboy; however, I can realize when they do something wrong. Cisco and Apple had been in talks for some time to come to an agreement on usage of the term. They were apparently close to an agreement when Mad Dog made his speech. Since an agreement hadn't been reached, Cisco got mad and filed suit. Either Steve decided to be a bit of a jerk, or he thought that they were on good enough terms to go ahead and use the name. Steve might have been better off if he called it a code name or something along those lines, a la iTV.
No excuse. This is the perfect example of arrogance.
It's impossible to disagree.
Actually it's not impossible
As more information is released it is becoming clear that Cisco acquired the patent through a purchase of a purchase, that they did NOT have a product with that name during the entire span of the 6 years that they owned the mark, then a few days before the grace period would end they submitted a document stating that they had a product named iPhone in the market (which was not true), then they waited 7 months (from May 2006 to December 2006) to rebrand an existing product with the iPhone name.
And the only reason that Cisco bothered to do this is because they want some money from Apple. They are willing to do the absolute least to make sure that they can collect a licensing fee for a name that they did not use for several years and don't seem to care about except when it comes to "owning" the name.
Talk about squatish!
The "i" branding is Apple all over it. It's just a money play, not actual truthful patenting on Cisco's part.
How about ...
Nobody gives a damn!???
I mean seriously, neither Apple NOR Cisco should have a patent on a name. A name is just a freaking name. If Jobs had any innovation thoughts instead of theft thoughts, he would just think of a new freaking name? Why would anyone be so stupid to pay millions to squatters anyway?. Just call the daggone thing someting else. How hard is it to call it the "iFone" or the "iCell" or the "phoneSX"??
im not saying its right, im just saying its legal <sigh>
So a lawyer had a different viewpoint.
Imagine that. Haven't you ever heard that when you're asking a lawyer for an opinion, she will ask you what you want the answer to be first?
You were simply premature...
...in your initial outcry of 'Thief'.
The simple fact that it isn't a simple fact (of theft) should have precluded your initial accusation.
In other words, as its quite possible that Cisco doesn't even own the rights to 'iPhone', you shouldn't have started a thread calling Apple (and Steve Jobs) thieves. At least until some judge declares it a theft.
Apple would not have had negotiating talks with Cisco if they were aware that Cisco lost the patent. Whether it was legal or not, it was certainly a brash move on Steve Job's part.
Perhaps Cisco is simply squatting but lets remember last year when Apple sent cease and desist letters to tightpod and profitpod. Both companies have tried to play on the i craze. I will let them work this one out.
The entire Apple corporation is based on the theft of the GUI interface from Xerox, so uhh yeah Steve Jobs is a thief.
...he said, typing from his Xerox computer...
I don't see them as competing products
Cisco's iPhone is not the same as Apple's iPhone.
But still, it was a little premature of Apple to name its phone before they had the trademark.