“Stop listening to all the claptrap about Apple and Cisco and what Cisco really wants: monetary damages, stopping the iPhone and the like,” jim Cramer writes for RealMoney.
Cramer writes, “Cisco doesn’t want royalties on iPhone. Cisco could care less about keeping the name iPhone. These theories are all wrong. Cisco’s trying to get cool. It isn’t cool now.”
Cramer writes, “Here’s the deal: I believe that what Cisco really wants is to have Apple open up the Apple TV device — the just-announced set-top box that streams video from your PC to your TV — and other products for Cisco to interface with.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Cisco General Counsel explains ‘iPhone’ lawsuit; Cicso wanted interoperability
with Apple iPhone – January 11, 2007
Apple calls Cisco’s ‘iPhone’ trademark lawsuit ‘silly,’ says ‘very confident we’ll prevail’ – January 11, 2007
Cisco sues Apple for ‘iPhone’ trademark infringement – January 10, 2007
The only thing really wrong with Apple’s iPhone is its name – January 09, 2007
Briefly: Apple changes corporate name; Cisco expects agreement on ‘iPhone’ trademark today – January 09, 2007
Apple debuts iPhone: touchscreen mobile phone + widescreen iPod + Internet communicator – January 09, 2007
No, duh. When you file a lawsuit you always ask for something insane and hope to win something real. It was obvious from that cusp of signing press release that Cisco wanted just something nominal.
Strange how Cisco inadvertently seeks to aid an enemy. The death of the iPhone name for Apple would benefit arch-nemesis Motorola more than anything else. Ed Zander probably had a woody when he first heard about the lawsuit.
real original, cramer
Maybe Cisco ought to start with making web interfaces fortheir products that do not require xp and ie 6…..
Cisco will loose. There are already devices on the market called “iPhone” and they are not made by Cisco/Linksys. Search Amazon to see a few of them. Cisco has not defended against this. Also, it can easily be demonstrated that the general public is confused by the iPhone moniker because they think it’s the Apple device. Before Apple even announced a cell phone everyone was calling it the iPhone. That’s a significant argument to make, and added with Cisco’s failure to aggressively defend the iPhone trademark againt similar devices, Apple is telling Cisco to basically F-off we’ll see you in court.
Cramer offers an interesting possibility, but it’s clear that Apple doesn’t want to do that. Why should they? Cisco purchased Linksys for an angle into the home market and Apple is going to kill them in that space. Apple could name their device anything but why should they? Everyone was already calling it an iPhone. I’m sure Apple is getting legal advice that is confident of success against a lawsuit from Cisco.
So wait a minute, will Apple TV not work with a Linksys 802.11n router? I was planning on getting a new AE with the a, the b,the g,the n, and the hey hey hey anyway, but Apple TV only works with an Apple AE box? Hmmm…
I just ordered the appleTV. Sweet!
Guys thought it all wrong, Cisco and Apple has good relations, instead of putting advertising money, pay the lawyers and Huge Publicity. Better than any advertisement, you wouldn’t think Steve already has this resolved don’t you to actually use the “iPhone” name.
chrissyone,
801.11 a/b/g/n are industry standards. you shouldn’t have any problem using any non-apple wireless router with the appletv.
I am with Cramer. Just because Cisco’s filing is probably 100+ pages and it says they are suing Apple for the iPhone in black and white means nothing. There could be some deeper meaning to the entire document. Maybe Cisco is sayiing that Jobs is a Christ figure. Maybe Jobs has to take the iPhone and throw it into a large volcano for all of humanity. Maybe they want Jobs to be more sensitive to his inner child
Maybe……Cramer is an idiot.
My very first post about the iPhone, on this site, during the keynote was that…wait for it…lawyers were going to engage in hand-to-hand combat over the iPhone name. DUH! Cisco got a whiff last year of Apple getting ready to announce the Apple iPhone and Cisco released their product in December thus exercising their copyrighted name.
I do not know if Cisco can defend the name. Cramer’s analysis is way off the mark. Cisco has been prepping for this fight since December (as far as we consumers know).
Just my $0.02
Reality Check,
Spot on mate. The computer industry is going to have to stop acting like the only thing on the planet is Windows – period.
To Ray:
Just because a filing is 100+ pages doesn’t mean it actually says anything.
I actually read their filing online, and it is laughably self-serving. More revealing is the blog post by the general counsel in which he says that Cisco’s asking price wasn’t money but “openness” and interoperability.
Also, let’s not forget what Cisco’s CEO was doing at CES on the same day as Stevenote — delivering an all-but-ignored address on … wait for it … The Connected Life.
Cisco has the right to protect its trademarks, and if I were in their shoes, I’d probably do the same thing. But they’re not in it to protect the sacred principle of intellectual property rights.
They’re just looking for some of Apple’s stardust for their own moribund brand.
Where the hell is Don’t Pass the Kool-Aid? I miss his deep insightful stock analysis.
Almost forgot, where are the freakin’ buttons for this new iphone?
Welcome to the social.
Well, do a ‘whois’ in terminal and find that
<quote>
Registrant:
The Internet Phone Company, LLC
3856 Willowview Court
Santa Rosa, California 95403
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: IPHONE.COM
Created on: 24-Aug-95
Expires on: 22-Aug-08
Last Updated on: 16-Jul-06
</quote>
has had the domain name iphoone.com since Aug 1995!
Cisco is gonna have a hard time with that trademark…
Cisco have something of value to Apple – a name, that’s all. And Cisco are trying to leverage that to gain something of value to them – entree, via Apple, into the cellphone market. Not a bad strategy if you can get away with it. But they won’t. First, Apple don’t need the iPhone name so much that they would willingly give Cisco access to anything.
Cisco have overplayed their hand. Apple can string this out until June and then just release it with a different name. Who will care? My guess is that Cisco will blink first – they need the iPhone name even less than Apple, and it will become worthless if Apple chooses a different name so they will have to rework their strategy and aim for something more reasonable.
My guess is that Apple will just use a different name unless their lawyers tell them that Cisco’s trademark is sufficiently wobbly that they can challenge it.
If nothing else, it will keep the product in the news until June!
I do not want Apple to reward Cisco for their extorsion attempt. And Cramer is right about Cisco’s motives.
Cisco, by its abject failure to defend its “iPhone” trademark for many years, has legally abandoned that trademark. But by playing dog in the manger, Cisco can harm Apple.
Apple, in any case, should go to court and refuse to settle. But it may still be better for Apple to call its first iPod/cell phone the “ApplePhone”. Even if Cisco wins in court, and I do not think they will, they will become a laughing stock if they use the now “Plutoed” iPhone brand. Screw Cisco.
Do not pay the Dane Gold!
Actually, Cramer’s analysis is closer to them mark, though the issue is not interoperability with (Apple)tv. It’s with Apple iPhone.
From Financiaal Times (Chandler is Cisco’s general counsel) :
“What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No. Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future,” Mr Chandler said.
I guess Cisco wasn’t paying attention when Steve Jobs said that thing during the keynote about the difference between product code names, and final names. At one time, Apple referred to their announced-but-unreleased TV product as the “iTV”. at this point in time, seeing as how the iPhone ALSO officially has ‘announced-but-unreleased’ status, they could just change the name in June to the phone, and then claim that “iPhone” was the project’s code name up until the official June release date. and if that happens, Cisco will end up looking like a bunch of asses. After all, Jobs said, “…and we’re calling it iPhone”. he did NOT say that “we will be selling it as the iPhone”. Right now, it’s just a ‘placeholder’ name (as much as “iTV” was) until the device is finalized in 5-6 months. Yeah, it’s all semantics, but Cisco just doesn’t seem smart enough to keep their excitement in their pants right now, and it’s showing.
– Bardiel
Apple could rename it the iVagina and people would still buy it, It’s the phone they want. They don’t give a rat’s ars what it’s called.
This is from an earlier post. Not mine.
It seems Apple may have a stronger case than it first appears.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
In order to serve as a trademark, a mark must be distinctive — that is, it must be capable of identifying the source of a particular good.
iPhone sounds like the source is Apple.
———–
Thus, for descriptive marks, there may be a period after the initial use of the mark in commerce and before it acquires secondary meaning, during which it is not entitled to trademark protection. Once it has achieved secondary meaning, trademark protection kicks in.
Apparently there are four iPhones out there, somewhere, but I hadn’t heard of them till Cisco’s a few weeks ago.
———–
The rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity. A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment.
Did Cisco abandon or squat, maybe not literally as they had an iPhone product (how many did they sell) but in effect?
———–
Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protection.
Apparently adding an ‘e’ to a word (eg ecommerce) and calling that distinctive enough for a trademark is not upheld.
———–
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is “likelihood of confusion.” To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant’s intent.
Apple wins 1, 4, 5, and 7.
There are some other potential loopholes (looking through lawyers eyes!) too.
There are some good comments here too:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/10/ilawsuit/
” “What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No. Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future,” Mr Chandler said.”
In other words, what Cisco wants is some of Apple’s IP (or access to it) because that is what Cisco would need in order to achieve “interoperability.”
As Steve said about Apple TV, iTV was just a working name for the prototype. If cisco doesn’t get out of the way, iPhone will become Apple phone when it is released (at least to Apple Inc). and everyone else will call it “apple phone” , or “iphone” – or just “the phone” – everyone will know what is being referenced and it ain’t no cisco product. I wouldn’t pay them a dime. Next thing you know cisco is going to sue Apple over the term switchers – no cisco its not switches Jobs is talking about – its switchers.
I didn’t think it was compatible with PC’s.