Cisco VP Explains Lawsuit Against Apple 303
Dekortage writes "The day after Apple announced its iPhone, Cisco sued over the name. Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, has posted an explanation of the suit on his blog: '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. ...I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of "we're too busy."' What did Cisco want? '[We] wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future.'" Another reader wrote to mention that already, Cisco's trademark might be in trouble in Europe.
Find a better name (Score:5, Insightful)
Cringely's opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Robert X. Cringely talks about this in his weekly post today [pbs.org]. He points out that Apple already conceded the "i"-prefixed name from the iTV to Elgato, makers of the "EyeTV":
So Apple changed its marketing, diluting its whole "iThis" and "iThat" naming strategy in deference to Elgato, a company they could buy with a weekend's earnings from the iTunes Store, but chose to go toe-to-toe with Cisco, a company that's bigger, richer, and just as mean as Apple any day.
He says it all boils down to big publicity stunt, wherein Apple will get a big, free publicity boost when they finally back down and rename it the "Apple Phone". He also goes on to give his explanation for why the iPhone^H^H^H^H^H^HApple Phone won't support Cingular's 3G network.
what were they thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has no chance if this does make it to court... The fact that they've been trying to license the name for years proves that they acknowledge Cisco's trademark as valid.
The truth about Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is ALL ABOUT:
-DRM
-Proprietary hardware
-Proprietary software
-Closed protocols
-Lock-ins
-selected compatibility
And just about everything else relating to total control. It's CEO is also know for pulling tantrums.
If you prefer Apple because its one and only way fits well, that's fine. But please stop looking down others (Microsoft users, Linux, etc), because you're the inferior drones.
Re:The truth about Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct.
But! Apple's products are simple and easy to use. They do what they're designed for. And they are elegant. In a lot of cases a Mac is the right tool for the job. It does, however, frighten me how quickly the 'geek community' has gotten onboard with Apple. Steve Jobs is the best salesman in the world. He sold the smartest community (geeks, by definition) on their biggest enemy (closed everything), and made them love what he's doing. Rather appalling if you ask me.
"surprised and disappointed" (Score:2, Insightful)
Legalities aside, and I'm not defending the legal aspects of Apple's continued use of the mark, but I'm sure Steve was "surprised and disappointed" too. Apple was apparently talking with Cisco all that time, just to have Cisco actually ship a product with the name just a month before the MacWorld keynote. If Cisco wants to paint itself as the poor hapless guy who got shafted on a sharing agreement mid-negotiation, I don't think it will really hold water. Apple spent how much on the collateral printing for the keynote, prior to the Cisco release? If Cisco puts out an iTurd with an "iPhone" sticker, I'm sure Apple's desire to be associated with Cisco and to share the trademark drops even more.
Note that Cisco is trying to win in the court of public opinion. Apple is remaining very mum about the whole thing. Which one is going to be seen as reasonable public pre-trial behavior in a court case is actually very debatable.
Open approach my behind (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, iPhone is quite clearly a trademark belonging to Cisco, and Apple knows it. So should be interesting to see what is going to happen.
Re:Just like iTV.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple Corporation (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point in history, both OS vendors will eat their babies. Beware brother, beeeware.
Mod me down for saying an unkind word about Apple, but there is at least a little truth to it.
Re:The truth about Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Close sourse isn't the 'enemy' of geeks. Almost everything Geek enjoy is closed in some manner. DOn't believe me? DO a spiderman comic* and see how fast you get closed down.
Many geeks use windows; which is less open, and not as powerfull as OSX.
Apple makes toys that make geeks wet their pants.
*or any number of things, I chose comics as an example.
Re:what were they thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Thought they had a deal. A legitimate understanding through negotiations in good faith (and the courts will often uphold good faith agreements if you can prove they actually existed). But they were dorks overanxious to use to name at the Grand Ball (which Cisco knew and manipulated) and put themselves at the mercy of Cisco who can now be a dick about the whole thing.
If Apple had said "We haven't named it yet," everyone would have just called it the iPhone anyway and deluted Cisco's mark without any liability to Apple.
KFG
Some thoughts on strategy and the endgame (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Apple's reliance on the "i" series of trade marks it already has. It will use this as a means of satisfying a test to determine the likelihood of confusion between the products. Some US legal experts have already claimed that this may not be a runner. We'll see (the area is heavily fact-specific so don't judge!)
2) Cisco's failure properly to defend its iphone trademark against usage by other third parties involved in a similar line of business. Can't really comment on that seeing as I don't know enough about it. what's funny however is that a google search for "iphone" gives you about 7 pages of results on the Apple product and diddly squat on any else.
There are two other factors which I can see, but which I think haven't necessarily been talked about much:
3) Cisco knows full well (but omits to mention) that Cingular will not allow Apple to "do VoIP" on its cells. An invitation to commit to interoperability between two companies looks on the surface like something both would want. After all, both are respected organisations with lots of R&D skills and a (generally well thought-of) reputation for execution. However, because the business plan could not yet allow that, Apple sensed a dangerous honey trap designed to lure it into an exclusive tie-in on VoIP on the iPhone platform. As we know, Apple partners with who it wants when it wants.
4) As this article http://www.out-law.com/page-7650 [out-law.com] suggests, Cisco may lose its EU trade marks in "iPhone" shortly. Apple may have filed the revocation notice itself. If the filing succeeds, Cisco will almost certainly have to settle.
As you can see, it's a muddy one. I'm not hugely impressed with Cisco's line that "it was never about the money". It's always about money if you think that you're paying more than something is worth. Apple's probably seen that 4) is likely to succeed, and will stall until Cisco is forced back to the table with a lower price. My 0.2$
Re:"surprised and disappointed" (Score:3, Insightful)
One, "defend the mark" does not equate to "fire off a lawsuit immediately." That's only one tactic that serves the purpose of defending the mark. The fact that documented negotiations exist at all is sufficient to show that they were holding up the legal requirements for defense of the mark.
Two, "fire a lawsuit" is sufficient, but to then hold press conferences or litter the WSJ with press releases explaining to uninvolved parties *why* they executed a legal option is not beneficial to their situation in any legally binding way, so why do it? Reason: public relations pressure. Cisco customers and shareholders are asking Cisco why they're being big poopy-heads when they could resolve the mark issue in a myriad of other methods.
Re:The truth about Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
If you prefer Apple because its one and only way fits well, that's fine. But please stop looking down others (Microsoft users, Linux, etc), because you're the inferior drones.
I look down on any person as inferior who thinks there's something wrong with buying and using whatever I like best for whatever reasons make the most sense for me.
Re:what were they thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cringely's opinion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"surprised and disappointed" (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a full decade of an active product with the name before Apple's announcement. This wasn't some Cisco ambush.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Steamroll how? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, should Anya Seton [wikipedia.org]'s estate executors be suing Toyota [toyota.com] and Marion Bradley [amazon.com]?
The standards regarding "infringement" require than the trademark similarity be prone to cause marketplace confusion between the products, diluting the brand.
Of course, Apple's prima facie argument that VOIP and cellular phones are too dissimilar to cause confusion remains highly questionable. It's true that the two are fairly dissimilar markets, but that could easily change, especially given Cisco's otherwise-spurious "interoperability" line. That request alone may prove to a judge that there's at least a case that the two markets are insufficiently dissimilar to allow Apple to use the same trademark.
Re:The truth about Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Let OS/X be usable on any Intel platform. Sell it on the shelf. Sell it via OEM on new Intel-based PCs. Increase your user base. Increase profitability immediately. Imageine - OS/X being able to go head-to-head vs Windows. But Alas, Apple is too retarded to see this.
I like to bitch about Apple's business choices just as much as the next guy, but you're not thinking this shit through.
McWhopper (Score:1, Insightful)
this seems to me like burger king coming out with a McCoffee drink, knowing McDonald's is about to do the same, then suing McD's when they do.
apple has been using the i* for quite some time, going back to the iMac in what? 1999? i know of no i* branding used by cisco before the iPhone. I think that apple would have a compelling argument on that fact alone.
it really seems like cisco is saying "hey, wait for me guys!... guys?", by sneaking in an iPhone months before the keynote, as another post pointed out.
mr c.
RTFA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cringely's opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ignorant... (Score:2, Insightful)
How can they interoperate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not "iPod Phone"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MOD UP: Mod points going to Mac users today? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:what were they thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I don't buy that at all.
Cisco BOUGHT a company that had the iPhone trademark. Big difference.
Look at Cisco's product line when it comes to phones (include Linksys too.) It has daring names like: Cisco SIP Proxy Server, Cisco Voice Provisioning Tool, Cisco Unified IP Phone 7985G, Linksys One Business Phone, Linksys One Manager Phone, SPA962 IP Phone.
Notice that there is not ONE vanity name in that list. Cisco had 2 years prior knowledge that Apple was going to release a phone and call it "iPhone". 3 weeks before MacWorld after discussions had basically fallen apart they release an iPhone product???? Come ON. That's a blatant smack in the face. Cisco had had no intention of ever releasing an "iPhone" they did so to profit off the energy of Apple's product and piss off Apple. Apple would not have wanted any other "iPhone"'s in the market.
Not that Apple is all blameless either. They should have just accepted that they were not going to get "iPhone" and pick something else. Picking a battle with Cisco like this over something so petty is idiotic.
Re:Cringely's opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Never-the-less... standing up a date is an assholic thing to do. I've been pretty hurt by it a few times. Maybe you haven't, but it's not only hurtfull, but incredibly cowardly. What apple did, as much as I like them as a company, was very cowardly, and Cisco is just pointing that out. What are you suggesting, they "take it like a man?" if every company spouted that kind of machismo mantra, we'd never get anywhere.
The point is, it's good to see company's negotiate... which is why Apple dragged Google, Yahoo, and Cingular execs up on stage with them. Sure, it was a publicity stunt, but the execs wouldn't have agreed to be there if they didn't feel it was a good thing, which is a positive step. Suddenly hearing that while they cow-towted their negotiations with these companies, but totally stood up Cisco Sys, really puts a black eye on their whole "working together" mantra.
Cisco has a right to be pissed, and they have an equal right to complain.
I'm a huge apple fan, I'm writing this from an old titanium power book, and since buying it, I've only become a bigger and bigger fan of the company... but the iPhone has some really big problems, and while at first I was drooling over the thing, it's reception among the masses has been very confusing. It's being hailed as a great gadget that noone wants to buy. This thing reeks of a PS3-type mentality. I just wish there was some hope of them drastically making some alterations before June, but once Apple makes an announcement, they hardly ever back down... especially from something this huge.
Re:Find a better name (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that all coporate giants are the same amount of evil just because they're corporate giants is at least equally laughable.