Apple calls Cisco iPhone lawsuit "silly"
updated 03:05 pm EST, Thu January 11, 2007
Apple, Cisco square off
Apple and Cisco are continuing to square off over the iPhone trademark, following the lawsuit filed by Cisco over willful trademark infringement. Apple today called the lawsuit "silly," while Cisco said it was willing to share iPhone with Apple. Earlier this week, Cisco said that Apple refused to send over final agreement paper on Tuesday and that it had no choice but to sue Apple over willful trademark violations, when Apple announced the iPhone on Tuesday without permission. Apple spokesman Steve Dowling called the Cisco lawsuit "silly," saying there are several companies using the term iPhone for VOIP products, and Cisco's trademark is "tenuous at best." "We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone," he told the WSJ. "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail."
On Wednesday, Cisco filed for an injunction to prevent Apple from using the iPhone name, which is currently used for VOIP-based devices from its consumer wireless division. The companies were reportedly on the verge of an agreement after several weeks of negotiations.
"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley and we all have to protect our property. The iPhone trademark is owned by Cisco, as noted in your story," a Cisco spokesperson told the WSJ. "We (Cisco) had hoped to reach an agreement to share our trademark with Apple, yet they decided to use the name without our agreement, so we, unfortunately, are having to go to court to stop them from using the name. We still hope we can reach an agreement, but when your neighbor steals your property, you have no recourse other than to call the cops and file a complaint."
Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, on Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark, also said in his blog that he was surprised when Apple announced the iPhone without an agreement, because they were open to sharing the iPhone brand with Apple.
"For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark," Chandler wrote in his blog. "We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach an agreement and Apple's communications with us suggested they supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the iPhone brand."
"So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement," he continued.
The refusal by Apple was taken as a slight against the Silicon Valley values of intellectual property and good faith negotiations, according to Cisco's executive: "It was essentially the equivalent of 'we're too busy.'"
Does it have to be an "i"
01/11, 03:58pm reply
Call it an Apple Phone. People will still buy it if its good.
leonpro
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: May 2004
Who defines "reasonable"
01/11, 04:02pm reply
Cisco probably want to charge Apple as though the iPhone trademark is securely in their inventory (which it isn't), and Apple probably was only willing to pay based on the tenuousness of Cisco's claim. Result: no agreement. Apple probably figured by Tuesday that it was cheaper in the long run to let the lawsuit happen. In other words, simply greed, and arrogance probably poisoned the so-called good-faith negotiations. Cisco should get back to making money by doing what they do best (if they can remember what that is), rather then huckstering about with tenuous legal claims.
debohun
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 1999
remember when Steve said
01/11, 04:45pm reply
at MWSF last year or at WWDC in June that all the names of the Computer systems were being switched to coincide with "Mac" in the name -- well since it does run OS X - that kinda makes it a Mac -- so call it a MacPhone_
Or if they really want "i" in the name call it the [iFone]
that does not infringe on Cisco's trademark of the name iPhone_
UberFu
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 2002
Note to Cisco, others...
01/11, 05:54pm reply
1. Lawsuit is silly. What makes you think Apple still isn't interested in negotiations?
2. What makes you think Apple would delay a MacWorld introduction over unfinished paperwork? Apple is not going to delay an announcement this big just to make you happy.
3. Trying to trademark iPhone in the first place was plain stupid. You and everyone else in the world knows that an "i" anything is going to be used by Apple, and they have precendence.
4. You do not have an exclusive hold on the "iPhone" name. It's a diluted reference.
5. Is it even possible to sue someone over a product that doesn't even exist yet?
6. Get back to making routers & switches. You're not making a cell phone anyway.
Apple, you could probably easily prevail in this lawsuit, but why bother? Play nice with Cisco, be a good neighbor, be reasonable and continue negotiations with Cisco so the sharks can go swim in some other ocean.
D
mytdave
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2000
Irony
01/11, 05:57pm reply
The only reason Cisco has a trademark on any product called "iPhone" is because Apple started the whole "iProduct" naming convention with the iMac, then the iPod, years ago.
Zak Nilsson
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 1999
precedence
01/11, 06:15pm reply
Actually, Apple did not start the "iProduct". The iPhone trademark was registered in 1996 (when Steve was still at NeXT) by a company that was acquired by cisco in 2000. Apple made the "iProduct" usage famous with the intro of the iMac in 1998.
mymacluvsme
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2004
get your facts right
01/11, 06:16pm reply
zak nilsson,
You must have just woken up to computer world when iMac just came along.
devilla101
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Dec 2003
What about ipaq?
01/11, 06:24pm reply
Is/was there an issue with this name? (or is it an iPaq?)
Will C
Dedicated MacNNer
Joined: Jan 2001
use it or lose is?
01/11, 08:46pm reply
Does anyone know if trademarks are like patents? If you have a patent but don't do anything with it, don't you lose the right to the patent? If true, and nothing has been done with the iPhone moniker in 10 years, is it still yours? Also, if they have a trademark, and others use it but they don't enforce their trademark, do they also lose that like you would on a patent?
Bottom line, the timing of Cisco's iPhone announcement seems suspicious. As if they now all of a sudden decided to release their "iPhone" speculating they'd be able to blackmail Apple out of some cash.
ender
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 1999
Outcome bet
01/12, 10:04am reply
I sincerely believe that the sole reason for manufacturing and releasing Linksys' iPhone in mid-December was the upcoming announcement of Apple's iPhone. Cisco wanted to reach the licence agreement with Apple that would allow them to feed on the sales of Apple's iPhone without even making efforts to sell their own iPhones. They knew that Apple will not drop the name, since Apple was trying to buy it for a very long time. They knew Apple will announce it on MacWorld. So, with a perfect timing they let out their own product with the same name. Will it sell? Who cares! It isn't supposed to become a mass product under any name anyway, while Apple's iPhone is destined to grab a slice of the cellular phones market pie.
However, the law is the law and Cisco has the upper hand in court right now. They cannot claim Apple iPhone is hurting their sales, as Creative did before, but they can ask for banning Apple iPhone from entering the market. I presume the case will be settled out of the court with Apple paying some fixed amount of money and Cisco promising they won't sue Apple for their current generation of iPhone.
ViktorCode
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2006