[Nick]

Cisco is suing Apple for trademark infringement over the "iPhone" name Apple chose for its new
cellphone, unveiled yesterday. According to the Wall Street Journal, Cisco obtained the iPhone
trademark in 2000 and had been in talks with the computer maker for rights to the label. Cisco said
they entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after the company had repeatedly asked for
permission to use the name, but now the company is using the trademark without permission.

Once again, marketing jumps out ahead of the snap. I can't believe Jobs would let that happen!

 

[HIPAR]

What was the first iGadget? I wonder if the first iTrademark holder really has the rights.

--- CHAS

 

[Nick]

A quick lesson in how to get a bulging behemoth moving? Just make the announcement.
That's what Steve Jobs did when he presented the iPhone on Tuesday. The name has,
inconveniently, belonged to Cisco since 2000 and the two companies have been in talks
over the moniker for quite some time. Unfortunately for Apple, divulging its use of the name
landed the company in a legal entanglement, with Cisco suing Jobs' company over its use of
the iPhone trademark. Cisco obtained the iPhone moniker with its 2000 acquisition of Infogear.

www.mediabizcorp.com - used with permission

Personally, I would have trademarked "iFone" or "iFon", or even "AppleCore" as in 'rotten' as... :sure:

 

[HIPAR]

From the account of the iPhone 'Launch' that I read, Reverend Jobs had his entire congregation ready to line up for the CoolAid.

So what happens if he looses the iSuit? What to do about that 200,000 ton container ship filled with these things that's making its way here from China?

Cynically yours,

--- CHAS

 

[Sharkie_Fan]

So what happens if he looses the iSuit? What to do about that 200,000 ton container ship filled with these things that's making its way here from China?

Apple will either settle out of court for a WHOLE lot of money, or they'll lose the suit and pay Cisco a WHOLE lot of money.

the whole "i" naming scheme is so identified with Apple, there's no way they won't pay to get the name.

Perhaps Cisco was trying to squeeze too much $$ and Apple thinks they'll pay a fairer price this way. Hoping a judge will make them pay a "reasonable" amount for the name as opposed to an exorbitant amount that Cisco was asking.

As an aside. I want it! I'm not an Apple freak by any means, but I really don't like the existing smart phones / PDA phones. I don't like the look and feel of the Treo's at all, the other Cingular products are hokey. The blackjack looks nice, but I really like the Apple device...

 

[HIPAR]

As an aside. I want it! I'm not an Apple freak by any means, but I really don't like the existing smart phones / PDA phones. I don't like the look and feel of the Treo's at all, the other Cingular products are hokey. The blackjack looks nice, but I really like the Apple device...

Or maybe they will just need to rework them states-side to Nick's iFone.

Cynicism aside, I also think Apple does put a lot of thought into their products.

--- CHAS

 

[Earl Bonovich]

What is even worse...

Is they can't play "dumb" that they didn't know.

As they where in negotations with Cisco to get the rights to the "name".

Problem is Cisco/Linksys already started to market an Internet Phone.. aka iPhone.

I am sure that they change iTV to appleTV as it was too close to IPTV.

 

[Steve Mehs]

The first 'iGadget' I know of was the iPaq from Compaq. Back when the iPaq was a series of products not just a PDA. This was back in 1998.

 

[HIPAR]

The first 'iGadget' I know of was the iPaq from Compaq. Back when the iPaq was a series of products not just a PDA. This was back in 1998.

I did a search on iPag and found references to Digital Equipment Corporation. They were big innovators in early computer technology. I remember them from IEEE shows in New York way back in the late 60's. They became famous for the PDP-11 'minicomputer' and later the VAX computers. The company was dissolved during the early 90's with parts going to Compaq. Then Compaq was acquired by HP resulting in iPag coming down to us through a circuitous route.

So I guess the first iGaget very well might go back to the late 80's - early 90's. I guess the i moniker belongs in the public domain. :sure:

--- CHAS

 

[Steve Mehs]

Are you sure you got the right device, it's iPaq not iPag

 

[HIPAR]

That bite hasn't been chewed out quite yet. Here's some insight into the trademark legal mumbo jumbo.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?=236

--- CHAS

 

[djlong]

I'm reading stories now that are saying Cisco may NOT win because Apple can easily show (via public records) that they abandoned the trademark.

They went over the time limit for USING the trademark in a product, and when they wanted an extension, they showed a picture of a box with an "iPhone" sticker on it, yet nowhere in the product's documentation is "iPhone" referred to.

Turns out that Apple might have a good case.