p2pnet - rss feed: Apple’s iPhone hijack: more
p2pnet.net News:- The way Apple hijacked use of the iPhone name without permission from its owner is now the subject of headlines around the world.
Most people not involved with the technology industry probably believed Apple held the trademark. But that wasn’t, and isn’t, the case. In fact, it’s been Cisco’s property since 2000 and the two companies had been negotiating so Steve Jobs could continue using the name.
But the talks hadn’t been finalised when Apple officially launched iPhone.
“If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights?” - blogs Mark Chandler, Cisco’s SVP and general counsel, also observing, “Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.”
Why did Jobs do that knowing the name wasn’t his to use?
“It was essentially the equivalent of ‘we’re too busy’,” says Chandler, going on:
Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. 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. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.
This lawsuit is about Cisco’s obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.
Now you know.
Also See:
launched iPhone - Apple says Cisco iPod suit is ’silly’, January 12, 2007
blog - on Apple’s infringement of Cisco’s iPhone trademark, January 10, 2007
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:45 am
All I have to say to Cisco, Well done!
At long last Apple is going to getting a serious legal attack. Also reading between the line in the Cisco statement, I think Cisco see Apple behaver in the past as being questionable. What I say “What comes around, goes around!” and I have no problems with Apple being attacked this way.
If I was Apple I would not boast in public about patents. You are just asking for someone to take you on. It would be interesting to know what patents they are talking about, just so that we could see if there is any prior art. Also lets see if any part of this device from Apple infringes on any patent troll rights.
lol
Apple laid down the challenge and we shall rise against them. Apple loves to be the b**** ie Apple news site’s let give them some of there own medicent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
January 15th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Indeed, Apple Inc. has found themselves at the hand of numerous lawsuits by a relatively unknown company (to consumers anyway) called Apple Corps., who owns Apple Records. Originally, the settlement made upon Apple’s foundation was that Apple would not enter the music business. Since iTunes, the iPod, and the iTunes Store, however, Apple Inc. has been fighting Apple Corps in the courts, usually with success.
Will this new lawsuit of trademark infringement put Apple Inc. in their place? Probably not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps