Why can't Apple, Cisco just play nice?

Apple's brash move to launch the iPhone without permission to use Cisco Systems' trademarked name was a major snub to the networking giant.

Cisco had hoped to strike an interoperability deal with Apple. The company's general counsel, Mark Chandler, said in an interview Wednesday after Cisco filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Apple that the companies had been close to finalizing a deal the night before Apple CEO Steve Jobs took the stage at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco to announce the long-awaited iPod cell phone called the "iPhone."

special coverage
Macworld 2007

Click here for full event coverage as Apple continues its consumer electronics push.

But after "intense" discussions ended at 8 p.m. on Monday night, Cisco hasn't heard from Apple, he said.

One of the conditions of the deal was that Cisco wanted to work with Apple to ensure interoperability among the companies' product lines, Chandler said. While specific details of the negotiations haven't been made public, a Cisco representative indicated Thursday that the interoperability clause rejected by Apple would have encompassed a range of products from Cisco and Apple.

"In general, we were asking for the two companies to work together to make our products and technologies more interoperable with each other," said John Noh, a spokesman for Cisco. "In this case, interoperability was an important consideration because, as we've said, we see the potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone, and the PC as limitless, and we see the network as the foundation for innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services consumers want."

Apple declined to comment.

Over the past several years, Cisco has become a leader in the voice over IP market. It first sold this technology to large companies. And now, through its home networking division, Linksys, it's taking VoIP into the home. Specifically, Cisco/Linksys has partnered with companies such as Skype and Yahoo to integrate consumer VoIP services with wireless and cordless phones.

"Apple likes to keep control of the environment in which their products operate, so that nothing takes away from the value of the products."

--Tim Bajarin, Creative Strategies analyst

It's these products that Cisco has labeled "iPhones." The company has been showing off some of the products at this week's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. For example, the WIP320 Wireless G phone, which looks like a candy-bar style cell phone, accesses the Internet via any standard 802.11b/g Wi-Fi connection. Calls can be made using a Skype VoIP client.

Meanwhile, Apple's "iPhone" will use Cingular Wireless' cellular network to make and receive calls. The phone comes equipped with Wi-Fi, but Apple has made it clear that this feature is designed to allow users to download data and other multimedia onto their phones at broadband speeds when they are in a Wi-Fi hot spot, said Tim Bajarin, a principal analyst with Creative Strategies, who covers Apple closely.

Apple has not indicated that the Wi-Fi connection could be used to launch voice over IP calls, he added. In fact, Bajarin said that consumer VoIP clients such as Skype can't be downloaded onto Apple's iPhone.

"Apple has made it very clear that the iPhone is not a VoIP phone," Bajarin said. "The company wants to make it very clear that this is a cell phone; not a VoIP phone."

That said, it's unclear whether or not Apple would add this capability at a later time. And perhaps, close interoperability ties with Cisco could jeopardize or limit future plans to integrate with other companies' technology or with technology that Apple may develop itself, he speculated.

[munkiebiz]

Two good companies...

...but I agree, it wouldn't make a great partnership. Apple, a gadget and toy company, seems a bit self absorbed and (from experience) doesn't seem to have the same commitment or level of customer service or support that Cisco has with its products. Cisco, on the other hand, is a serious networking company, about to explode into all sorts of media and entertainment disciplines, and probably sees Apple as a small but potentially useful ally in these efforts, if not for more than the "hip" name association.

Since Cisco has had the TM for years and beat Apple to market with product, this looks like either a hugely arrogant or very sloppy mis-step by Apple. But my bet is the tiff will end quickly and quietly and little will become of any serious collaboration.

[tedk7]

NO WONDER

"In general, we were asking for the two companies to work together
to make our products and technologies more interoperable with
each other," said John Noh, a spokesman for Cisco.

Cisco wants to have a say in Apple products?! Get a clue, John.

I'm sure Apple wanted the name and NOTHING ELSE. They're not
looking for help from your MCSE dorks and those clowns that wrote
IOS.

[Mister Winky]

And we're back to Microsoft bashing....

what do MCSEs have to do with this story? Did you mean CCNA? CCIE?

This is one problem even the most rabid Apple fan can't blame on Microsoft (unless you're delusional, of course).

-Mister Winky

[gggg sssss]

clue really needed

I am not a Cisco fan, an dcertainly not an MCSE, but IOS and the hardware it runs on provide more value to the world, the music industry, the phone industry and teh internet in general than YATP ( yet another toy phone ) ever will. That iTunes download, that cingular call will all go through more Cisco hardware than you will ever conceive of. What Apple product has contributed that much to the world?

[Hep Cat]

How's that taste, Apple?

For a company that agressively andd mercilessly goes after any
and all possible transgressions of IP, Apple is certainly getting a
taste of it's own medicine.

While I can't fault companies for defeinding their trademarks and
IP, it's fitting to see Apple get such a public comeuppance
against such an important announcement.

On the other hand, it sounds like Cisco wanted to be included in
the iPhone's featureset and Apple just wanted the name. This
could be a play to force Apple's hand.

Don't you wish you could read stuff this insightful on C|Net? I
guess that's why they have comments - so people will finish
their stories for them.

[mhersh]

I don't see the big deal.

Why can't they both use the iPhone name? When I hear
iAnything, I think of Apple. How can a name like iPhone help
Cisco? I, the average consumer, know nothing about Cisco's
products. Apple has used the "i" in it's products since 1997's
introduction of the iMac. Apple's used the "i" in many of it's
products, making the "i" prefix a common Apple theme. Any
time I see any products with an "i" prefix that are not made by
Apple, I think, "What a rip-off." I truly feel Cisco just wants the
publicity of putting up a fight against Apple. Everyone tries to
make a buck off of Apple, just like good old Microsoft. I even
say a miniature fan, complete with iPod look, called "iFan". What
the hell?

[technewsjunkie]

You are smart. You should be a tech writer.

I am amazed at your brilliance and insightfulness.

Wow. Really. I mean it.

[Mister Winky]

Yeah, why won't Cisco just let Apple trample their rights?

Yeah, what's wrong with Cisco? I mean, don't they know that Steve Jobs is GOD and that his needs and his ego trump any business objectives little old Cisco might have?

WHY WON'T CISCO JUST LET APPLE USE THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR FREE?!?! The bastards! ;)

-Mister Winky

[libertyforall1776]

Cisco could help Apple's SIP iPhone integration

This is what we need -- SIP on the iPhone... Cisco could help...

[GadgetDon]

Intellectual Property?

I'm sure there was an offer for money. Cisco wanted to put their
fingers into Apple's intellectual property, to help set the designs
of the product.

And while they have had that trademark for many years, it went
unused until Apple was almost ready to announce, when
everyone and his brother knew Apple was coming out with a
phone and the name everyone and his brother used for it was
the iPhone. And if they hadn't used the name iPhone on it,
nobody would have noticed.

Cisco may have the legal upper hand (though the fact that there
are eight registered trademarks of iPhone and their disuse of the
trademark may come into play). But the purpose of trademarks
is to keep someone from trading on someone else's good name,
thinking that his product was actually from some well known
and respected organization. If there's any trading on someone
else's good name going on her, Cisco did it when they called
their Skype phones "iPhone".

[markdoiron]

That's An Interesting Take ...

That's an interesting take on trademark law. Following that line of thinking, if a company registers a trademark, but delays using it while another covets it, then all the second company needs to do to negate the trademark is have a bunch of fanboys start saying that's the obvious name for the second company's product, a product that is pure rumor and speculation because of the second company's ruthless enforcement of corporate secrets. The actual trademark owner is defenseless. Interesting, as I said.

mark d.

[rifkiamil]

Apple and SIP ahhh

Apple never put SIP on their phone, and will never let 3rd party software run on their phone.

Apple will fit the small market that want to live the Apple life...

[rifkiamil]

Cisco sold more 12 million more IP Phones than Apple

Cisco sold more 12 million more IP Phones than Apple, Cisco sold more IP Phone then anybody eles... Cisco IP Phone is in movies and tv shows around the world... not becuase they run IP.. but due to then being sexy..

Check out the 7971 Cisco phone,,, its been out since 2003 and will run with SIP.

I think Steve Job pissed off that Cisco with IP, killed AppleTalk.

[ashgilpincom]

...

don't see what the big deal is. apple should do its own thing while cisco does its own thing. plenty of room for both of them.


http://www.ashgilpin.com

[Mister Winky]

Only if Apple plays fairly

You're correct -- Apple and Cisco *can* settle this amicably, but Apple has to complete the negotiation process in good faith.

Right now, Apple is thumbing its collective nose at Cisco. Cisco has the legal right and, more importantly, the fiduciary duty (doing business on behalf of its shareholders) to maximize the value of their well-established intellectual property.

-Mister Winky

[casual observer]

next, Apple makes a robot and steals iRobot's name

But Apple can go after people for using "pod" in their names. Hypocrites.

[jrzshor]

iCall

iCall. It simple.

Any use of this pending trademark will be met with a stern talking
from my mommy!

[sternla]

iFone.

I remeber thinking Cisco's use of the name iPhone was really
cheeky. You could tell they were trying to set up some future
leverage, while just plain stealing a marketing strategy that is
instantly recognaizable as branded by Apple. It was cheap then, its
only cheaper now. Cisco's marketing dpt. should start looking for
some original ideas, but oh yeah, their Cisco. What was I
thinking?!!!

[jmanico]

The Cell

I like the sound of iCell

[cxar71]

The letter "i"

Whate the hell, just because Apple came out with a couple of products whose names start with a "i", that does not give them the exclusive right to use that vowel in front of any product ever built from then on. Apple produced an eMac too, do we want to grant them the exclusive right to use the "e" letter too? I might want to know that, I don't wanna be charged for unvolountarily using the word email.
In the end, all this is just pretentious, bcuz in all these "iProducts" the internet stands for "Internet", not for "I'm an Apple fanboy".

[weebnuts]

Go Cisco

I'm not usually a big Cisco fan, but in this case, GO CISCO!!!
Apple does not want to play fair and loves proprietary technology with no interoperability. They won't even come to the table with others, so finally they aren't getting there own way, and it's about time.

[Hep Cat]

Ooooh! You're so right!

"Apple does not want to play fair and loves proprietary
technology with no interoperability."

Yes, it's so whack-a-doo that Apple uses TCP/IP!! And what
about SMB? Those nut cases at Apple, what with wanting to
connect to Windows networks!

They even build computers you can install Windows on - without
extra steps. Those incompatible goofs!

Oooh. those proprietary weirdos at Apple, with their Intel
motherboards and ethernet and USB and DVI and nutso
connectors that no one uses. They're so nonstandard!

(You look like an idiot, weebnuts.)

[sec24]

What's in a name?

Sure, ipod is super-famous and so is iMac. But with overdoze of the "i"s, I don't even think it's worth fighting for. Couldn't Apple think of any better name? Cisco is not less greedy either; *** interoperability for using trademark name? What are they smoking?

[Hep Cat]

Thanks!

I bask in the glow of your compliments.

If I ever move back to the Bay Area from my SE Louisiana hellhole, I
may just do that.

[Ronin_1]

"Apple iPhone"

As observed in this article, the full name of the device is "Apple
iPhone" (shown with the Apple logo and iPhone in many instances,
just as with the Apple TV. It will be interesting to see if the court
decides whether there is even an issue here.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/iphonegate-iphones-
real-name-is-apple-iphone-apple-in-the-clear-228263.php

[pentium4forever]

Go Cisco, go Cisco!

Go Cisco!

[sunergeos]

Ponytails and pom-poms - that's all you got?

Let's raise your game a bit here so you can graduate.

It seems to be a typical game of chicken. Apple has a deadline and they are about to make an public announcement on a project they have spent millions on. Cisco knows that so they throw in the interoperability angle hoping to put Apple in the vice-grips. Apple is only asking for use of the name - Cisco wants them to pony up more money to use their technology as well.

I predict Cisco losing because of prior art - "iPhone" is used in two other products already on the market and Cisco didn't go after them. So why go after Apple? Also, the prior art fact will cause Cisco to lose their rights over the name. Just because it hasn't been contested before doesn't mean that it can not be contested now with a win.

[PostNoComments]

iWar

I think Apple wants to pick a fight just for publicity's sake. Cisco is
right to demand a cut of the deal. Can you imagine if some
company came with another device called iPod? Apple would be
after it like a pack of wolves.

I wouldn't mind a deal that benefits the consumer. Cisco's VOiP in
an Apple iPhone? Sweet!

[mh20932]

This is simply bad faith on Cisco's part

Apple has been negotiating for this trademark since 2001. Everybody knew that "iPhone" was the obvious name for the Apple phone. And Cisco rushes a product to market just a month before Apple's iPhone launch? This whole thing stinks.

[DHNet]

Um...

This trademark was registered LONG before Apple has 'i' anything. Just because they did not come to any agreement why should Cisco be forced to abandon it's trademark just because Apple decided they want to steal it?

Where is the logic?

[john55440]

Apple's (Job's) Arrogance Strikes Again

The World According To Jobs:

What Steve Jobs wants, Steve Jobs gets. End of discussion.

Silly things like laws shouldn't get in the way.