chrisvenus | Apple are the evil empire

Just imagine for a second that you are a big company witha globally known brand. You are releasing a new product and you want to keep it in line with your naming of outher products so you decide that iPhone would be a good name. You discover (and have known for some significant number of years) that this name is trademarked by somebody else.

Do you:

a) hold off on an announcement of the product until after the trade mark discussions are complete
b) announce the product but build the lack of name into your PR campaign or something clever like that until you have resolved the trade mark issue.
c) rename the product to something else - you've had several years and a huge marketing department to come up with a new one
d) ignore trade mark law and hope that because you're iPod and iMac and iWhatever were so globally recognised that you can steamroller the trademark holder into giving it up because you're an arrogant [censored] and announce the product with illegal name to a global audience.

I'd personally have put d as my last choice but apparently apple thought it was the best choice out there. Cisco are sueing them. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

Ahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm sorry, I just find this very funny. If anybody can find an apple press release on the issue I'd be interested to hear it since I've not really heard an explanation from apple except some quotes of them saying that Cisco's trademark was tenuous at best and people with no clue on trademark law saying that because random people were referring to the iPhone (ie apple fanboys) that Cisco had failed to protect its trademark.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

cultureofdoubt.livejournal.com

Odd, given that Apple didn't name their TV doobrie the iTV. Presumably because of similarly named companies/products.

From:

chrisvenus

Well, many people do say that they were close to reaching an agreement with cisco. It may be that the suing is all an agreed thing. It may be that apple were desperate to announce with name so they went to cisco and said, "We're going to announce with name, you sue us and we'll finish sorting out the details later." Cisco then sued, can't obviously admit that its by agreement and so we go. This strikes me as a bad plan though so I think its unlikely since any paperwork would potentially destroy the claim for one side or another if presented in court and lack of paperwork just leaves *huge* amounts of trust between the two parties which with the huge amounts of money is a bad idea.

So what is the apple TV thing called?

From:

evath.livejournal.com

apple TV but with a picture of an apple not the word, sucky really.

From:

cultureofdoubt.livejournal.com

Apple TV.

So why would Apple want Cisco to sue them? So that Cisco can be seen to protect its trademark?

From:

chrisvenus

Yeah, if you can be proven not to have made efforts to protect your trademark then you lose your trademark I believe. So cisco would *have* to sue or they would lose the trademark and apple win anyway (though I think they couldn't have the trademark themselves, there would jsut be no trade mark or something).

Think this is right though.

From:

metame.livejournal.com

Also, it's all publicity innit? or should that be iNnit?

From:

chrisvenus

right to an extent but I think there would have been enough positive publicity without all this unless its building up to something more.

From:

innokenti.livejournal.com

Yeah, but we already knew that Apple were evil even before this. I did anyway. Maybe I was enlightened or something. :D

From:

chrisvenus

Nah. I've always known they were evil and brainwashing people. I mean, why else do people buy about fifteen iPods because they buy the new one before its even realeased? Its a cult, I tell you. The only thing I really like of theirs is the iPod Nano because I've never seen something similarly compact. Though that might have changed by now anyway.

From:

innokenti.livejournal.com

Well indeed. I hate anybody who predominantly sells their name. Because that is essentially duping the customer (except that the customer is in on this, but is stupid enough that they can't help it). It's not that I'm against iPod users, because everyone loves different stuff, but Apple could produce a far more functional, technically superior piece of tech with an excellent price-quality ratio because everyone else on the market is doing it. But no, they are selling name and looks which has nothing to do with listening to MP3s. They've made people think that it does though. Which is a heinous crime in my books.

From:

chrisvenus

Ah, iPods are not for listening to mp3s, they are a fashion item. They just happen to play mp3s as well. I realised this when I was watching TV and found some celebrity not A list but not Z-list either. Around the B-list area. They were saying that they'd bought an iPod but hadn't actually bothered to take it out of its packaging yet. ARGH! Kill! Maim!

From:

innokenti.livejournal.com

Well exactly. I share your sentiment.

From:

cultureofdoubt.livejournal.com

I had a first generation iPod, and have also had a third, and currently have two fifth generations (because one broke down, I replaced it, and then the broken one spontaneously resurrected).

I got the first one because it had a lot of capacity (for the time) and worked nicely with my Mac. I also found it had a nice interface.

I've bought the later ones for the same reason. I buy them because they integrate nicely with the computers I like, have good capacity and have a good interface.

It almost bugs me that everyone else buys them for the name or the look.

From:

innokenti.livejournal.com

Huzzah!

Have a sticker. :D

From:

evath.livejournal.com

This has baffled me too, when the cisco iPhone was released, fanboy sites happily just called the yet unreleased apple iPhone an apple phone to stop confusion.

I'm not quite sure who to believe in all honesty, I mean the way cisco say they wanted to make a joint product line with apple just seems bizarre anyhow. Sounds to me like cisco actually just want money. And as Edd points out apple already had to rename the iTV :S. Maybe they felt they would release it as iPhone and rename it as Apple Phone later, but knew the name would stick.

From:

chrisvenus

The trouble is the name won't stick if that's not the name on the box. And even if it does stick that's a bad thing if its not actually what your product is called, I'd have thought.

More than anything else I'm baffled since I would be surprised if Apple screwed up that much. I think they must truly believe they will get to keep the name in the long run but I just don't see how.

And with the whole "join tproduct line" I think I agree that it seems weird and that cisco wants money. But to be fair, in a business that's what its all about. They have a product line and if they make more money by selling the name and rebranding their phone then they will do it. What they do in the haggling process to drive the price up is up to them. Apple may be trying to call their bluff by saying "Our last offer or its see you in court" but I think that's a bad bluff since if apple lose the rebranding will cost them probably a heck of a lot.

From:

evath.livejournal.com

I agree with all of that, especially that apple believe (or believed) they would keep it. Except for the name not sticking if it's not on the box. The number of people who call a games console a playstation etc etc... there are countless examples, however no rules if it will happen or not. An iPhone will be a must have thing, and they wan't you to think of apple when you go looking for one.

Not so true to techie people, but for the person who buys an ipod for fashion, they will go and buy an iphone without knowing the name. Then again the iPhone really can't just be a fashion item, it costs far too much.

I'm just confused. Just glad I want to play with one, but don't actually want it.

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

Apple's strategy will make sense in retrospect when they win the lawsuit.

Which they will.

From:

chrisvenus

Why do you say that out of interest?

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

Because trademarks aren't like patents. The idea of a trademark is that you protect your brands from people trying to thieve them. Say what you like abotu Apple, but "i<thing>" for various values of <thing> is clearly one of their brands.

These "Infogear" people from whom Cisco acquired iPhone don't even make mobiles - their iPhone is some kind of VoIP thingy.

In other words, the whole thing is rather stupid and pointless.

As such, it looks like Cisco are just suing on principle for the benefit of their shareholders. The case probably won't even run to completion. Cisco and Apple will just reach some undisclosed settlement.

From:

chrisvenus

Say what you like abotu Apple, but "i" for various values of is clearly one of their brands.

Exhibit A - iRiver. An mp3 player (so exactly the same marketplace and a direct rival to iPods) that, to the best of my knowledge, has never had any issues with its name from Apple. They do not have any right to "i" as a name by virtue of this since they haven't made any attempt to protect it as a brand (and I'm not sure how this would work).

Also iPhones are, from what I've seen, capable of plugging into normal phone lines, computers or wireless, as well and given most of these sorts of things make standard telephone calls (not just computer to computer) then I think its not quite as "zero overlap" as you think. I think it is quite reasonable to say that the two telephones are in the same marketplace and thus a trademark infringement has occured. Add to that the fact that you run applications on the cisco iPhone (I'm not sure how much at the moment but the same can be said of apple's one). I'd say that the only real difference is that the apple iPhone seems to be able to connect up via a mobile phone style connection and not via a normal telephone socket.

I won't be surprised if apple end up with the name but I don't think they are just going to get it to save lawyer costs, I think they will end up paying a considerable amount more than that.

From:

inskauldrak.livejournal.com

iRiver - hmm, interesting as I would have thought Apple could make a case for 'passing off'. Then again, perhaps they felt that it would generate more publicity for the rival product than ignoring it.

From:

chrisvenus

I wouldn't have been surprised if apple had had a go about the naming similarity, however, they didn't which means I don't think they could justifiably have a go at anybody else in the future on these terms.

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

Oh I'm not saying they won't pay for it. I'm quite sure they will. Which is exactly what they want.

What won't happen is for the court to tell them they can't use it.

From:

chrisvenus

OK. THat is not the same in my book as them winning the lawsuit. Clearly Cisco are likely to sell because their product has no brand recognition currently, is going to be seen as a poor imitator of the apple iPhone and they are going to get much more money from selling than from keeping. The point is I think if they wanted to hold onto it they could. I don't think they would lose in court, they will just settle out of it. But I guess that's what you're saying too so we all agree. :)

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

Yeah, the only difference is that I don't think they wanted to hold it. I'm guessing it went something like this.

Cisco: We've got your trademark. We've got your trademark.
Apple: Bastards. OK, I guess we buy it off you then.
Cisco: Hurrah ! We'll except $lots.
Apple: Haha. No. Instead we'll pay you $notmuch.
Cisco: Haha. No.
Apple: Fine, we've now released our product anyway !
Cisco: Bastards. OK, I guess we sue you then.
Apple: Except you're obviously not going to win.
Cisco: But even if you win, the court costs will be $lots.
Apple: Fine. How about we pay you $reasonablesum instead ?
Cisco: Hurrah !

From:

chrisvenus

I think the difference is not quite that.

Cisco: We've got your trademark. We've got your trademark.
Apple: Bastards. OK, I guess we buy it off you then.
Cisco: Hurrah ! We'll accept $lots.
Apple: Haha. No. Instead we'll pay you $notmuch.
Cisco: Haha. No.
Apple: Fine, we've now released our product anyway !
Cisco: Bastards. OK, I guess we sue you then.
Apple: Except you're obviously not going to win.
Cisco: Dude, we totally are. We're going to win, you're going to have spent lots of money and then have to spend lots more on a rebranding exercise.
Apple: Fine. How about we pay you $reasonablesum instead ?
Cisco: how about you pay us $lots.
Apple: That's daylight robbery.
Cisco: If you don't want it feel free to do the whole rebrand thing.
Apple: Grumble. You win.
Cisco: Hurrah!
Apple: We're still the prettiest.
Cisco (to self): Still not king yet. :(

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

Yup, OK, yours is funnier. ;-)

From:

zorac.livejournal.com

A couple of points:

1) It's my understanding that Apple own the trademark for iPhone pretty much everywhere that isn't the USA. (This may be an exaggeration).

2) Cisco are also the evil empire :-D

Still, under the circumstances I am rather surprised that they didn't pick another name...

From:

chrisvenus

2 Might be right. I've not much experience with them myself.

As for the 1st, ahving looked it up for UK:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=E796268 that's the cisco one, registered on 25 May 1999.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=E2901007 is the apple one. Not there is no registration date on that since it is considered a new application.

I'm not going to look around further and I'm not an expert on trade marks but in the UK at least it looks like Cisco have registered it and I'll be surprised if they didn't register it as well in most major countries. As I say, I can't be bothered to do the legwork to prove this claim though. :)

From:

twicedead.livejournal.com

But I still want an iPhone. My ipod Nano is great, it has pretty good battery life, good capacity and interfaces with iTunes which I find highly usable. But If I could tie it in with a mobile and a browser then I'd do so.

Though Nokia's N95 with music, 5mp camera, GPS and web browsing tempts me too.

From:

kievala.livejournal.com

*Figures out how much she can say and what she can't considering who she works for*

1) iPhone is a registered trademark of Cisco
2) There already exists a product called iPhone which the released a few years ago
3) Apple have been trying to buy the name for years with Cisco refusing to budge
4) They were in meeting over this very issue the night before the announcement.

From:

chrisvenus

Since I am clearly well out of the loop on gossip, who is it that you work for?

And don't worry, most of that I think I have seen places on the web (apart from the nigth before bit but I'd seen "until not long before the announcement" or words to that effect.

From:

kievala.livejournal.com

Yeah I posted the stuff that you can find on the web if you look hard enough ;)

I actually start my new job work for Jeffrey Green Russell on Monday but it was my current employer Bird & Bird I was refering to.

From:

susanofstohelit.livejournal.com

Cisco is also even more prone to litigation than Apple, to the extent that they sue people who sell refurbished gear on the grounds that the IOS is non-transferrable.