IOS is Cisco’s core operating system used for nearly two decades. It is the world’s leading network infrastructure software, delivering business-critical services and hardware platform support.
Currently operating on millions of active systems, ranging from the small home office router to the core systems of the world’s largest service provider networks, Cisco IOS Software is the most widely leveraged network infrastructure software in the world.
Source: Cisco Systems Inc.
MacDailyNews Take: First “iPhone™,” now “iOS™.” Cisco’s built a nice little business licensing trademarks to Apple.
Couldn’t Apple just buy Cisco and be done with it?
iOS is not that good of a name to be paying a licensing fee.
It’s probably easier (and cheaper) to license a known trademark, than come up with a new one… and then wait for the trademark-trolls to come out of the woodwork.
The publicity and visibility Cisco will get for THEIR iOS is worth more than the money Apple will pay them.
Why would they license an established and unrelated brand name? What am I missing?
Isn’t that like calling the new OS Nike?
MDN Take: “First “iPhone™,” now “iOS™.” Cisco’s built a nice little business licensing trademarks to Apple.”
Well if Apple would stop naming their products after items that already exist, then they would not have to get licenses, would they? Since IOS has been around for a very long time, and the iPhone was an actual shipping product, how can you even get snarky about that. Oh wait, I forgot, this is MDN, and anyone making Apple pay for a license is just not playing fair.
@The Other Steve: “The publicity and visibility Cisco will get for THEIR iOS is worth more than the money Apple will pay them.”
It does not matter. Cisco sells switches and routers, etc. They are a hardware company first. IOS sits on these, as does SANOS, PIXOS, etc. There are multiple OS’s for operating Cisco’s equipment, so it does not matter what the OS is called.
What Apple wants Apple gets.
@ drackmere
Cisco may not be a consumer brand, but any free publicity that isn’t negative is still a good thing. Cisco will benefit.
As the old saying goes . . . say anything about me that you want, just make sure you spell my name right.
Recall the dispute in trademarking with the very name Apple.
Licensing indeed.
@drackmere
Hey nice try. Time to head back to the cave troll.
Let’s see, Cisco re-badges an existing phone at the last second before their trademark expired from inactivity, based on the rumors that Apple wanted to use iPhone for their product.
@The Other Steve
You may quite possibly be correct. It will not hurt. It definitely shows a willingness to reach out to other companies, even if it is just to offer license terms.
Sent from my iPhone
@Edster
So, I am a troll eh? Well oh great one, let me inform you of something so you don’t go all squishy. The IPhone was not a re-brand. It belonged to Linksys before–read that again boyo–before Cisco bought them. This was at least two years before–once again do the re-read–Apple came out with the iPhone. And as for last minute re-branding, do you even know the process involved in re-branding and copyrighting/trademarking? As for calling me a troll? That’s just funnier then hell.
drackmere,
I don’t know if you are a troll or not but your knowledge of the Cysco / Linksys iPhone licensing issue is a bit off.
It’s very likely that Cisco would have lost the rights to the iPhone trademark had Apple decided to pursue it in court. It had been completely abandoned fOr years, and they hastily slapped The name onto an existing shipping product at the very last possible moment. But even if Apple would have prevailed in court and lost Cisco the name, it would have taken awhile. It was easier and more beneficial to apple and Cisco to work out mutually amicable terms. Note the iPhone is compatible with some of Cisco’s networking technology.
The iOS was a smart grab by Apple, it ties in well with their products. Also note that the difference in capitalization will help keep the two products distinct.
By the way I am a huge fan of Apple and their products, but I have no issue with them paying a license to Cisco or Google or Microsoft or any other company. It’s not clear from
MDN’s snarky take that they do either. Based on many previous takes it doesn’t seem like they have any problem with it at all, they are simply amused.
@twilightmoon
Apparently you work for Cisco, however, this was not the story told to me by those I work with, but then knowledge around that place gets dropped occasionally. If that is indeed the case, then I wonder why Linksys kept their IPhone (internet phone as we all know) branding, copyright active, and were actively selling them (I may also be off on the dates as well, but I don’t think so).
And if that is the case that they had “abandoned” it for years, it would still have held up due to them owning it. We have seen this kind of nonsense with trademarks/copyrights before.
@drackmere
Ok, here is one credible source, I await yours…
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/cisco-lost-rights-to-iphone-trademark-last-year-experts-say/236
@Edster,
Unfortunately, as that may be the case, however, that depicts that Cisco had to have a “continuous use,” which it does not. This does not mean that Cisco had to actually use the trademark, but that it did not “abandon” said trademark. This is a gray area of law which can be debated until hell freezes over, and by those whose knowledge of the law far exceeds mine. The fact that Apple licensed the name precludes the argument that they thought they could have the trademark voided. Since Cisco was in the process of manufacturing/shipping a phone of the same name makes the declaration of abandonment harder to prove. Whether they did this as a ploy, who knows, and no one will without further evidence, and we just don’t have that. So, making the statement you made as fact, based upon one article without further evidence is not what I would call a good reading of the facts.
@drackmere
I never said that one source is adequate, and quite frankly additional sources are pretty easy to find. I just supplied one piece of evidence to support my assertion which apparently you aren’t able to provide.
While we can never know the true facts, intelligent people can usually see the reality even if it’s not proven in a court of law. For example, selling a device called the iPhone which is exactly the same as a product you are already selling with a different name. How about having the name of the product as a sticker on the pre-printed box, is that something Cisco frequently does?
Obviously, Cisco got what they wanted from the stunt, likely some quick cash for very little investment. Good for them. Let’s not pretend that Cisco really wanted the brand. I never even thought that iPhone was that great of a name but it seems to be working.
You post all snark and garbage and then jump on other folks for posting valid information. Was your childhood really that unhappy that you need to troll a Mac gossip site?
@Edster,
“I never said that one source is adequate, and quite frankly additional sources are pretty easy to find. I just supplied one piece of evidence to support my assertion which apparently you aren’t able to provide.”
If you read my post to twilightmoon, you would already have your answer. Careful reading is what is required, not petulance. Those sources were from within the company itself, so how should I link to them exactly?
“How about having the name of the product as a sticker on the pre-printed box, is that something Cisco frequently does?”
Not certain, nor would it invalidate my point. If they did, they did to show a mock-up of the intended packaging as required by law.
“You post all snark and garbage and then jump on other folks for posting valid information. Was your childhood really that unhappy that you need to troll a Mac gossip site?”
Oh, okay, since I actually have no idea what “snark and garbage” you are talking about (I am certain you will enlighten me). As to my childhood, that innuendo just invalidates any comment you have made, or will make, to anyone, ever. I do not insult, or abuse. I simply state what I know to be fact to the best of my knowledge, and have never attempted to belittle. If I am wrong, then I admit it. You sir, have shown what a true troll is. And I could ask: “Why are you on a Mac gossip site?” I am fairly certain it has nothing to do with a bad childhood. Good day to you sir.
Apple was absolutely boneheaded in their own trademaking when they went after people using the word “pod”, which is an actual word that existed before their product.
Instead, they should have gone after the slew of stuff, mostly crap, that tried to jump their train by putting lowercase “i” in front of their product names. That was actually a unique and distinguishing marketing feature of Apple’s consumer products, but they failed to protect it.