toggle

AAPL Stock: 431.77 ( 0 )

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/25/cisco.ceo.on.apple.suit/

Cisco CEO: Apple suit a 'minor skirmish'

updated 12:30 pm EST, Thu January 25, 2007

 

Cisco CEO on Apple suit


Cisco CEO John Chambers described the company's lawsuit against Apple as a "minor skirmish," saying that the iPhone name-related confrontation could have been avoided if Apple had been willing to negotiate. Cisco owned the 'iPhone' trademark since 2000 when it acquired a firm that had registered the name, but waited to use the name until it launched a Linksys-branded product. "We told Apple for five years, 'This is our trademark. We'll license it to you, but it is ours,'" Chambers said. "All we ask is that people respect our trademarks and our intellectual property. We would have traded that for just interoperability, or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco products." Cisco's chief also said that his company normally resolved trademark disputes "very smoothly," but that Apple has become difficult to deal with, according to the International Herald Tribune.


by MacNN Staff

Post tools:

TAGS :

 Apple
toggle

Comments

  1. lkrupp

    Junior Member

    Joined: May 2001

    0

    Linksys support!

    "We would have traded that for just interoperability, or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco products."

    They could start by having Linksys officially support the Mac platform. Their products work with Macs but they don't offer official support or configuration software.

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    Re: linksys support

    Their products work with Macs but they don't offer official support or configuration software.

    I always considered the lack of configuration software a plus, not a negative. Who wants to run software that does who knows what to your computer (like on the windows side!).

  1. jpellino

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Oct 1999

    0

    Interop?

    You mean like not having to hardwire a PC to a linsys router to get it running? That sort? We're waiting...

    To address his apparent concern, though - they're assuming this thing will do VOIP, which it does not yet.

    Other that that, why woud a cell phone / 802.x standards-compliant appliance need to worry about which router is upstream of it?

    This seems all bluster on Cisco's part. Apple's lawyers must have either been willing to back-burner this for the sake of getting the keynote done, or discovered something that will make this a much easier case.

  1. debohun

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 1999

    0

    LOL

    Chambers better hope it is only a minor skirmish. There is some evidence to suggest the possibility that Cisco may have run afoul of Federal statutes in this little dust up. They may lose a lot more then a trademark.

  1. malax

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2006

    0

    Actually...

    Doesn't the iPhone do VIOP transparently behind the scenes? I read that a call would automatically and transparently be switched from the Cingular network to an AirPort/802.whatever network when one became available. So I would start a call on Cingular in the car but end it as a VOIP call at home. Or did I just imagine/misunderstand this feature?

  1. just a poster

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jun 2004

    0

    .

    I fundamentally disagree with John Chambers. While I support trademark law, Cisco had not used the iPhone name at all and was merely abusing trademark law to reserve "iPhone" such that the company could force compliance or concessions from another party who actually did the work toward creating, producing and making available for sale an iPhone product.

    If there's any evidence of trademark violation going on here, it's Cisco's blatant abuse of the protective spirit of trademark law.

    Shame on you, Cisco.

  1. coldfusion1970

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 2004

    0

    re: malax

    As i understand it the iPhone only uses WIFI for internet connection. It automatically switches from WAP (or whatever) to WIFI when in range of a wireless gateway.

  1. machead

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2006

    0

    wha?

    I wonder what he means by interoperability. I never understood what he meant by that. What exactly would apple have to change to satisfy this requirement?

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    Re: lol

    Chambers better hope it is only a minor skirmish. There is some evidence to suggest the possibility that Cisco may have run afoul of Federal statutes in this little dust up. They may lose a lot more then a trademark.

    So you're now saying they've commited a federal offense over this? Exactly what statutes have they run afoul of?

  1. SolarMedia

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2006

    0

    Typical Mac users

    thinking the whole world is out to get them. If the position were reversed, Mac users would still be all over Cisco's case. Apple could have done something far more serious and Mac users would still think Apple is beyond error. Some days, I am ashamed to be a Mac user. I wish the die-hard Mac users could be objective for once in their lives.

    Got my Nomex on, so flame away.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Logitech FabricSkin Keyboard Folio for iPad

Since the fourth-generation iPad didn't evolve much over its predecessor, the market for iPad accessories has remained somewhat static ...

Huawei Ascend Mate

The Huawei Ascend Mate is a phone that fits the screen-size gap between the 4 to 5-inch smartphone and the seven-inch or more tablet, ...

MaxUpgrades MaxConnect for 2006-2008 Mac Pro

Nobody outside of Cupertino's privileged bunch knows the future of the Mac Pro line for sure. Despite Apple's reluctance to tell us wh ...

toggle

Most Commented