Apple, Cisco settle iPhone trademark lawsuit

Cisco Systems and Apple said Wednesday they have settled the trademark-infringement lawsuit over the use of the iPhone name for Apple's new multimedia phone.

The agreement allows Apple and Cisco to use the iPhone brand on their own products. Also, the companies said that they would explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security and of consumer and business communications.

The brief announcement made no reference to any financial agreement, nor did it specify how the two companies might work together. Representatives for Apple and Cisco declined to comment further, citing confidentiality restrictions.

Cisco sued Apple for trademark infringement in January after Apple unveiled its long-awaited multimedia phone called the iPhone, a name claimed by the network equipment maker. Cisco also charged in its complaint that Apple had attempted to get rights to the iPhone name several times, but after Cisco refused, created a front company to try to acquire the rights another way, according to the lawsuit.

Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 when it acquired Infogear, a small Redwood City, Calif., start-up that developed consumer devices that allowed people to access the Internet without a PC. Infogear had actually registered the iPhone trademark in March 1996.

Cisco's home networking division, Linksys, has been using the iPhone trademark on a new family of voice over IP phones since early last year, Cisco said. In December, Linksys expanded the iPhone family with additional products.

The two companies had been in extended negotiations to settle the lawsuit, and a second extension of the talks was set to expire Wednesday.

The iPhone, which Steve Jobs unveiled in January at the Macworld Expo, will allow users to listen to music, make phone calls, send text messages and e-mail, surf the Web, and take and upload photos. It's expected to be available in the United States on Cingular's network starting in June and will come in two versions, a 4GB model for $499 and an 8GB model for $599.

[LarryLo]

Jobs has big big _____s

I mean who else has the audacity to launch a product knowing full well he will end up being sued by one of the biggest tech companies in the world?!

AND in the end...gets everything he wanted?!

Who I ask you!?

[Mister Winky]

And you know the details how?

The fact that Steve Jobs had to settle with Cisco instead of bullying them outright strongly suggests that Apple didn't walk away without giving something up in the process. Like it or not, Cisco clearly had the legal upper hand in this dispute and their army of lawyers didn't give a freebie to Lord Jobs just because they like the look on his face.

The public may never know the details of this arrangement in full, but jumping to any conclusion that Apple "got everything it wanted" is simplistic and likely wrong.

-Mister Winky

[Bryan777]

Steve Jobs does it again!

Jobs knows what he is doing! He would not have annouced iPhone
in January if he did not believe they would reach a settlement. Cisco
will benefit from sharing the iPhone name with Apple.

I hope this helps the iPhone launch sooner than June.

[Dachi]

Jonathan Ive deserves at least as much credit

Jonathan Ive is the genius behind the design of iPhone and almost every cool Product from Apple Inc.

http://www.nydailynews.com/business/story/488512p-411422c.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive

He designed the iPod, the iBook, PowerBook, PowerMac, iMac, and the iPhone, yet every time Apple accomplishes something everybody gives Steve Jobs a pat on the back.

[technewsjunkie]

From Lawsuit to colllaboration

Excellent for both.

[Dachi]

This is all Cisco wanted in the first place

According to Yahoo news the deal they agreed on was only to collaborate on future technologies.

I have no specifics on what technologies they are going to collaborate on (VoIP related probably), but this is all Cisco asked for in return for allowing Apple use of the iPhone brand in the first place.

Maybe Apple held out for better terms of the deal, but in the end Cisco got what they requested.

[markdoiron]

My Impression Is ...

Based on the several articles I've read on this, my impression of the publicly announced parts of the deal is that Apple agreed to **talk** about collaboration on future technologies. I believe that what Cisco really wanted was a **commitment** from Apple to develop future tech.

I don't think that anyone who doesn't know the secret parts of the deal can accurately assess who "won". We'll have to wait to see what future tech/collaborative efforts between the two companies result before we can truly assess this deal.

mark d.

[thedreaming]

trademark

When you own a trademark, you have to defend it or loose it. Apple owns the iphone name in other countries but not america. cisco allowed other companies to use the iphone name for other products, so when big apple came around, they made a big stink, why? Simple, great way to make free publicity for yourself.

Jobs is smart, he knew how things would go and in the end, they both benefit.

[reustle]

My to bits

Just my two bytes.

Unless Apple has somehow convinced the US Gov they have rights to everything that starts with the letter 'i' because of public association of itunes and ipod then I can agree that apple would have grounds to win the fight against Cisco. This idea is not going to float.

If having a successful product line with the letter 'i' automatically copyrights everything else after that.

We would have to assume Intel truly owns that copyright as they used i286 in the late 80's, i386 and i486 in the early to mid 90's regardless if Intel filed (or filed and failed) the copyright at all.

Fact of reality is Apple dose not own the rights to everything starting with the letter 'i'.
Examples of products or services owned unchallenged by other companies: ibot, irobot (roomba or scuba models), icar, iplane, iboard, ipc, and ibike.

Add the fact that the department responsible for handling copyrights did recognize Cisco owning iphone before the imac, itunes and ipod products were launched.

With my above statement in mind:
Apple has a history of Doing things their way and using their weight and not have to deal with other companies on a level bases.

Along comes Cisco who is not small by any means and dose not have cash flow problems Apple seems to have on and off again.

Cisco did not have to let Apple get anything. With the exception of the LinkSys division, Cisco dose not market direct to the consumer, they do not have to give or take any thing from another company.

On the surface Cisco required interoperability and Apple has a history not allowing anyone else to create supporting products without the terms being dictated.

Cisco on the other hand encourages supporting products and wants strong interoperability.

I can only guess Apple did not want and Cisco insisted on interoperability. (Only fair if its their copyright or patent)

Until the details are known my gut feeling is Cisco bent over and let S. Jobs do another Apple/MicroSoft job to them.

This non related side noted observation.
Every year despite lawsuits and government lead investigations MicroSoft seems to get bigger in the field they started while Apple had to find other ways to remain viable.

I understand that the newer mac's can be duel booted with windows, but apple will not allow a pc to boot with a mac OS.

I guess B. Gates has it right, you buy a Mac Apple gets paid, then if you install windows and or MS Office and Microsoft gets paid.

I have no clue for S. Jobs and Apple, you buy a PC and MicroSoft gets paid, Apple fights the porting of their OS to the PC so they not get paid.
There are no widely known work environment applications made by Apple that ports over to windows, so Apple dose not get paid.

[ZiggyBop]

© or ?

I think you're confusing your ©s with your ?s. One guarantees you
use for a set period of time. The other has to be defended or you
loose your right to exclusivity.

Cisco didn't use the "iPhone" name for years and let other
companies use it, unchallenged, then photoshopped "iPhone" on
one of their products and resubmitted their application.

Cisco's ? case wasn't all that strong.

[Llib Setag]

New Apple iPhone AD on the 2007 Oscars!

http://www.apple.com/iphone/hello/

[reustle]

Hmmm

To keep things simple.
I have read the CNet articles that talk about Ciscos trademark iphone.

I see instances that Cisco had on several occasions licened iphone to other companies and nothing that said Cisco allowed the trademark to lapse.

Care to share the articles that support your point and educate me?

[lesfilip]

Hmmm?

Not sure who you are asking, but I'll be gald to reply.

"I see instances that Cisco had on several occasions licened
iphone to other companies..."

I think you read something wrong.

"...and nothing that said Cisco allowed the trademark to lapse."

Again, the opposite of available news. Cisco tried to keep the
trademark active by Photoshopping it onto products and
packaging, which is different than actually using the trademark
on shipping products and packages.

"Care to share the articles that support your point and educate
me?"

Google, my friend. Hace a nice day!