Cisco Extends Negotiations on iPhone

An anonymous reader writes "Apple and Cisco have just a short while longer to discuss the use of the iPhone name for Apple's new product. Cisco has extended the deadline for a resolution out to February 21st. The two companies are seeking a peaceful resolution to their problems, and the deadline was extended to 'reach an agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.' Early this month, Cisco put their lawsuit on hold to start these negotiations - it's easy to understand why they wouldn't want to scrap a whole month's worth of discussion over a few final details."

Why can't Cisco just sell it?

[bendodge]

Why could Apple just buy the trademark? Is Cisco charging too much, since they know they have Apple over a barrel? Here's how I see it:

1. Cisco got the trademark, legal and straight.
2. Apple wanted it.
3. Cisco wouldn't give it up.
4. Apple used it anyway.
5. Cisco sues.

Why can't Cisco just sell it? Is it just a case of general greed?

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't believe that cisco has a good claim to the trademark for the name as they don't really use it.
Therefore they aren't about to shell about a bunch of money to cisco and do exactly what cisco wants.

There may be another reason

[edwardpickman]

Based on everything I've heard I think the unspoken issue may be Cisco trying to use this issue to keep Apple out of VOIP. Their case doesn't sound strong enough to keep Apple from using the name but they probably can with VOIP phones.

Thoughts on Apple & Cisco

[maggard]

Coupla thoughts:

• It's not clear that Cisco "owns" the name "iPhone" in this case.

  • Apple's product isn't particularly close to the "iPhone" product Cisco now holds the trademark for.
  • There are several other trademarked "iPhone" products also slightly dissimilar that Cisco hasn't challenged (nor have they challenged Cisco).
  • Cisco hadn't exercised their trademarked "iPhone" until they rushed a rebranded product out just in advance of Apple's announcement. This was clearly done entirely to support any claim to the "iPhone" name as the packaging was nothing more then crack-n-peel stickers pasted over the product's original name, not a particularly credible product.

• Cisco's goal appears to be assuring their interoperability with this, and later, versions of Apple's iPhone line.

  • Assured interoperability could prove highly valuable should Apple's iPhone product line eventually encompass VOIP technologies, something most folks expect will happen sooner rather then later.
  • On the other hand such an obligated partnership could well prove onerous to Apple; greatly complicating future technology directions and post-AT&T-committment/other-region carrier negotiations.
  • Apple has historically not been a great hardware partner, witness their repeated difficulties with Motorola (the rocky AIM alliance, their unilateral cancellation of Motorola's license to build 3rd party Mac motherboards, the dismal limitations and stunted marketing of the ROKR phone capped with Apple's decision to build a competing phone. ) A forced partnership with Cisco doesn't inspire much confidence of a better relationship.

• The trademark issue is unlikely to have any immediate effect on Apple's "iPhone" marketing or consumers, it's all IMHO a tempest-in-a-teapot.

  • For the reasons above Cisco is unlikely to get either an injunction against Apple continuing to market the name "iPhone" or a summary judgement in Ciscio's favor. Instead this is likely to drag out for years in legal actions & responses.
  • While Apple has begun their marketing for the iPhone it hasn't even entered production yet, so any branding changes to another name is still entirely possible, and will only create more hype.
  • The most likely end result of this whole exercise is Apple either winning the right to use "iPhone" as a a different product then the one Cisco now holds the trademark for, or Apple in a few years pays Cisco some sum of money to make up for damages and makes the whole thing go away.

Frankly this whole discussion seems a product of the extreme interest in Apple's iPhone and no new real news to report on it, so instead everyone natters on about a trademark issue as if it has any substantive effect.

What interests me far more is what Apple has done then what it is named.

Apple has changed the relationship between phone makers and carriers. They got Cingular, now AT&T, to change their backend specifically to accomodate the iPhone's front-end features. That's big. That cracks open the door to carriers finally starting to get smart about expanding services in partnership with handset makers instead of simply dictating what of the standard feature sets they will & will not support.

Apple seems poised to deliver a mass market portable web browser. No, they're not the first, but to a large extant this is the first one most consumers will be aware of. Finally a decent browser, not the ugly-stepsister WAP stuff, with a good sized screen and able to connect to both the 'net & local networks.

And yeah, it's a wide-screen(ish, it's a bit of an odd ratio) iPod video player. A larger, very high quality, screen, abandonment of the defining circular touchpad, a refreshed interface and video now becoming a peer to audio instead of being an afterthought.

Indeed, what is most suprising to me is that Apple even chose

Re:Cisco doesn't want money...

[75th Trombone]

Cisco doesn't want money

Cisco is a corporation. For anyone to make such a statement about a corporation is patently ridiculous.

Re:Why can't Cisco just sell it?

[Wavicle]

Okay to all the posters prior to this who pointed out the cisco iPhone...

Cisco created that product AFTER Apple announced their iPhone. Cisco allowed their trademark to LAPSE then quickly pulled it back while it was in limbo before being completely abandoned. Cisco incorrectly claimed to have an iPhone product when they renewed the trademark. After word of Apple's iPhone started floating around, Cisco quickly rebranded an existing product to use the iPhone name hoping to hold on to it.

In short, Cisco acted with bad faith, and continues to do so.

I don't particularly like either company, but I think Cisco is the dishonest party in this case.

Am I the only one

[logicnazi]

Who noticed that the net effect of this lawsuit is to get apple free media coverage for apple's iPhone?

Maybe apple, or both apple and cisco have some incentive to put off settlement for awhile?