Oops...
January 11, 2007 8:12 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: post in existing thread
An agreement will be reached, and the suit dropped. No big deal.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 8:16 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by WinnipegDragon at 8:16 AM on January 11, 2007
1) Yawn.
2) Post it as a comment in the existing thread from just two days ago.
3) Way to ensure that this is searchable.
posted by Plutor at 8:17 AM on January 11, 2007
2) Post it as a comment in the existing thread from just two days ago.
3) Way to ensure that this is searchable.
posted by Plutor at 8:17 AM on January 11, 2007
Seems like breathtaking incompetence on the part of Apple's lawyers who presumeably did a trademark search, no?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:18 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:18 AM on January 11, 2007
Breathtaking incompetence? Nah, breathtaking arrogance maybe. There were failed negotiations involved..
iPhones from other manufacturers are OK, apparently. Either they have licenses or Cisco doesn't always care to defend their trademark.
posted by mkb at 8:24 AM on January 11, 2007
iPhones from other manufacturers are OK, apparently. Either they have licenses or Cisco doesn't always care to defend their trademark.
posted by mkb at 8:24 AM on January 11, 2007
ZMT: That was my first thought, but upon reading the whole article, Cisco claims that Apple had made several requests already to license the name from Cisco--so they knew it was Cisco's. Sounds like maybe some wires got crossed within Apple and someone thought they had an agreement in place with Cisco when they didn't.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:24 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:24 AM on January 11, 2007
iFigured as much.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:26 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:26 AM on January 11, 2007
The latest I heard (linked in one of the other iPhone threads), is that since Cisco's phone uses VOIP it doesn't compete with the Apple (in Apple's eyes). I'd think though, that the fact that Apple already tried to negotiate with Cisco would tend to detract from the usefulness of that argument.
posted by drezdn at 8:27 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by drezdn at 8:27 AM on January 11, 2007
iPhones from other manufacturers are OK, apparently. Either they have licenses or Cisco doesn't always care to defend their trademark.
I'm sure they're licensed. Obviously apple's pushed themselves into a box here, before Macworld they still could have changed the name to something else "iPod Phone" for example. Now Cisco can demand more money.
posted by delmoi at 8:27 AM on January 11, 2007
I'm sure they're licensed. Obviously apple's pushed themselves into a box here, before Macworld they still could have changed the name to something else "iPod Phone" for example. Now Cisco can demand more money.
posted by delmoi at 8:27 AM on January 11, 2007
There is indeed a link to the story in the other thread.
posted by The Deej at 8:29 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by The Deej at 8:29 AM on January 11, 2007
iWondered if it would take them more than 24 hours to file suit.
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:30 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:30 AM on January 11, 2007
iKill this thread?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:32 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:32 AM on January 11, 2007
News releases on open posts count as best of the web now?
posted by OmieWise at 8:34 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by OmieWise at 8:34 AM on January 11, 2007
i is the new e, apple should have just trademarked "i"
posted by edgeways at 8:35 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by edgeways at 8:35 AM on January 11, 2007
*rushes out to trademark all the other vowels, and sometimes y*
posted by edgeways at 8:36 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by edgeways at 8:36 AM on January 11, 2007
I can let you get away with a one word FPP that doesn't tell us anything about the link we are following, and to make a FPP that should have just been a comment in an existing post, but to also fail to give us a page title for this post of any substance is unacceptable.
posted by pwb503 at 8:38 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by pwb503 at 8:38 AM on January 11, 2007
iFlagged. iSorry.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:42 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:42 AM on January 11, 2007
oOps?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:42 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:42 AM on January 11, 2007
The latest I heard (linked in one of the other iPhone threads), is that since Cisco's phone uses VOIP it doesn't compete with the Apple (in Apple's eyes).
That's just silly. They're both phones, they both use the internet (although you can't make calls over WiFi on the phone).
And anyway, it doesn't matter if two things compete with each other, what matters is if they are in the same "trademark class" with eachother. There are several trademark classes.
Actually there are four live trademarks for iphone: 78581563,78590673 (the XTREME IPHONE), 77007808 and 75076573 owned by:
The trade class IC 009 comprises:
Obliviously both the Apple and Cisco products fall under that umbrella.
posted by delmoi at 8:44 AM on January 11, 2007
That's just silly. They're both phones, they both use the internet (although you can't make calls over WiFi on the phone).
And anyway, it doesn't matter if two things compete with each other, what matters is if they are in the same "trademark class" with eachother. There are several trademark classes.
Actually there are four live trademarks for iphone: 78581563,78590673 (the XTREME IPHONE), 77007808 and 75076573 owned by:
Teledex LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 6311 San Ignacio Avenue San Jose CALIFORNIA 95119,Respectively. The CISCO one is the oldest. it's regestered under the International trade class 9 and US classes 021, 023, 026, 036, 038
XTREME MOBILE LLC LTD LIAB CO NEW YORK 50 Main Street White Plains NEW YORK 10606,
Ocean Telecom Services LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE Corporation Trust Center, Room 123 1209 Orange Street Wilmington DELAWARE 19801,
and
CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134CALIFORNIA 94061
The trade class IC 009 comprises:
Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking (supervision), lifesaving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus.
Obliviously both the Apple and Cisco products fall under that umbrella.
posted by delmoi at 8:44 AM on January 11, 2007
First of all, Apple owns the iPhone trademark in the rest of the world, Cisco owns it here, but others have trademarks on "eyePhone" and iphone is rather generic consider the 90's were all about i-everything.
There's a six month clock. cisco says you have 7 months to pay us, apple says you have six months to give us a deep discount before we change the name and you get nothing.
End result - nothing interesting will happen.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:46 AM on January 11, 2007
There's a six month clock. cisco says you have 7 months to pay us, apple says you have six months to give us a deep discount before we change the name and you get nothing.
End result - nothing interesting will happen.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:46 AM on January 11, 2007
iPlead for the iMG tag.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by eyeballkid at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
The "i" stands for "infringement."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2007
Thank god we have another thread to keep Apple hype on the front page.
posted by 2sheets at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by 2sheets at 8:53 AM on January 11, 2007
indeed, it's so obviously an apple thread too... except when i think "oops," i think "microsoft."
posted by keswick at 8:58 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by keswick at 8:58 AM on January 11, 2007
That reminds me of the suit by Cisco against Apple back in ‘07 before they sparked off the iClone/Winbot’ wars.
Wait, is my temporal setting calibrated cromulently?
...I’ve said too much.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:02 AM on January 11, 2007
Wait, is my temporal setting calibrated cromulently?
...I’ve said too much.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:02 AM on January 11, 2007
Delmoi, I just want to make clear that I don't agree with the idea that they don't compete, just that's the argument I heard Apple was trying to make.
Pastabagel, were the 90s really about i-everything? I remember it being more e-everything (and I'm willing to sell my phrase "making the impossible, e-possible." to the highest bidder, to keep with the times, I'm thinking of changing it to "making the impossible, i-possible."
posted by drezdn at 9:06 AM on January 11, 2007
Pastabagel, were the 90s really about i-everything? I remember it being more e-everything (and I'm willing to sell my phrase "making the impossible, e-possible." to the highest bidder, to keep with the times, I'm thinking of changing it to "making the impossible, i-possible."
posted by drezdn at 9:06 AM on January 11, 2007
Holy bad reporting too...
"meaning that, if the suit is successful, Apple could not sell the new phone without reaching some kind of deal with Cisco."
That's not true...at most it means the phone can't be called the iPhone.
posted by Muddler at 9:10 AM on January 11, 2007
"meaning that, if the suit is successful, Apple could not sell the new phone without reaching some kind of deal with Cisco."
That's not true...at most it means the phone can't be called the iPhone.
posted by Muddler at 9:10 AM on January 11, 2007
That's not true...at most it means the phone can't be called the iPhone.
IT DOES???? OH MY GOD!!!! THIS IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!
posted by nathancaswell at 9:20 AM on January 11, 2007
IT DOES???? OH MY GOD!!!! THIS IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!
posted by nathancaswell at 9:20 AM on January 11, 2007
Cisco was smart. They held out on a deal to sell the rights until after Apple announced the new product. Now Apple with have to pay through the nose.
posted by squirrel at 9:24 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by squirrel at 9:24 AM on January 11, 2007
The phone previously known as iPhone?
"TPPKAiP."
Oddly, it's the same noise I make when I've got nasal blockage.
posted by owenkun at 9:27 AM on January 11, 2007
"TPPKAiP."
Oddly, it's the same noise I make when I've got nasal blockage.
posted by owenkun at 9:27 AM on January 11, 2007
Would it be dangerous of me to start the rumour that Apple (The other Apple) are pissed that Apple (yes, that Apple) semi-announced the Beatles deal before it had been signed off? Would it also be dangerous to say I wouldn't be suprised if Apple (The other Apple) pulled out of thier deal too? Of course, this is a rumour I'm starting. I'm not saying it's true or anything. Nobody told me about it previously. I just made it up. For a joke.
posted by seanyboy at 9:30 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by seanyboy at 9:30 AM on January 11, 2007
Squirrel, according to most reports I've read, all Apple had to do was sign some papers and the deal would have been done before the announcement, but then they made the announcement without signing the papers.
If Cisco wins on this, it could hurt Apple slightly more from a marketing or financial position than some people seem to think. If Cisco were to win, they could definitely get more money from Apple than they could have before the announcement (as Squirrel pointed out).
Clearly, Apple is trying to connect the iPhone to the iPod in the buyer's mind, so ideally, they'll be stuck with the name. If however, they decide the cost to Cisco is too high, then they'll have to change the name and will lose some of the less tech-informed, who were excited about the "iPhone," along with the general embarrassment of having to change the name. Finally, they won't have an easy way to tie the iPhone to the iPod in the casual buyer's mind.
It probably won't hurt too much, but it will hurt.
posted by drezdn at 9:31 AM on January 11, 2007
If Cisco wins on this, it could hurt Apple slightly more from a marketing or financial position than some people seem to think. If Cisco were to win, they could definitely get more money from Apple than they could have before the announcement (as Squirrel pointed out).
Clearly, Apple is trying to connect the iPhone to the iPod in the buyer's mind, so ideally, they'll be stuck with the name. If however, they decide the cost to Cisco is too high, then they'll have to change the name and will lose some of the less tech-informed, who were excited about the "iPhone," along with the general embarrassment of having to change the name. Finally, they won't have an easy way to tie the iPhone to the iPod in the casual buyer's mind.
It probably won't hurt too much, but it will hurt.
posted by drezdn at 9:31 AM on January 11, 2007
were the 90s really about i-everything? I remember it being more e-everything
The 90's began being about x-everything and ended being about e-everything.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:33 AM on January 11, 2007
The 90's began being about x-everything and ended being about e-everything.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:33 AM on January 11, 2007
I heard Gwyneth Paltrow's suing, too, seanyboy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:38 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:38 AM on January 11, 2007
Why can't Steve Jobs just trademark "lower case i prefix"? I'm sure that would make him a lot of money, and it seems like the hapiness of apple fanboys is directly proportional to the amount of dough currently flying into his pockets.
posted by tehloki at 9:53 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by tehloki at 9:53 AM on January 11, 2007
Metafilter 3.0 = iFilter. Countdown to thread deletion in 3,2, 1 . . . .
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:00 AM on January 11, 2007
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:00 AM on January 11, 2007
« Older Retail Therapy | Just this site alone would make them millionaires Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by edgeways at 8:13 AM on January 11, 2007