Reality Check | Ephraim Schwartz | InfoWorld | Why Apple doesn't care if Cisco sues over the name iPhone | January 11, 2007 01:13 PM

MORE ENTRIES

Why Apple doesn't care if Cisco sues over the name iPhone

January 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Why Apple doesn't care if Cisco sues over the name iPhone

Why would Apple use a name, iPhone, for its cellular handset when Cisco trademarked the name for its VoIP phone years a go?

My cynical guess is that Steve Jobs and his marketing department figured it this way.

If they lose the trademark infringement case in court they will have to turn over to Cisco all of the profits they've made from sale of the device.

But, the device isn't available until June. There are no profits until then.

And, once the press stops genuflecting before the iPhone, giving Apple millions of dollars in free marketing dollars, Apple will still have almost six months to market the heck out of their cellular phone under the iPhone name.

They can afford to spend millions of their own until the name becomes synonymous with Apple and cellular in the consumer's mind.

I don't see Cisco spending millions to market yet another run of the mill VoIP phone. Do you?

If they did it would probably just increase the sales of Apple's iPhone.

Apple it seems is using the lame excuse that since theirs is a cell phone and not a VoIP phone there is no conflict between the two products.

But Apple will never test that weak defense in court. Rather they will settle with Cisco before Cingular sells one Apple iPhone.

Did I hear someone say 'power' corrupts?

Posted by Ephraim Schwartz on January 11, 2007 01:13 PM

RATE THIS ARTICLE:

COMMENTS

Appreciate the logical scope of the terms used in the TM registration below - a masterpiece of generality that subsumes the essential character of all digital telecom. No mention of VOIP limiting it's scope. Also note the dates. Cisco bought the IP years later.

WordMark: IPHONE Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606

Serial Number 75076573
Filing Date March 20, 1996

Posted by: Marc Laventurier at January 11, 2007 04:23 PM

Perhaps I'm quibbling, but IPHONE really isn't the same as iPhone. The lower-case i has been associated with Apple products since the introduction of the iMac and the return of Steve Jobs to Apple as the iCEO (the "i" stands for interim.) Everyone else has made use of it since then and I can only assume that Apple didn't fight its use because it amounted to a reminder in everyone's minds of the "i" in iMac. And later, the iBook, iPod, and iInfinitum.

Posted by: Fred Mezger at January 11, 2007 10:05 PM

If you want to get technical, "Apple iphone" isn't the same as "Cisco iphone" is it? Trademarking is a joke. If I file for "Bob" can I sue every person that's named Bob afterwards? What a world we live in.

Posted by: George at January 12, 2007 03:59 PM

Yes, but if you came up with a new unique product, say a robot that irons shirts, and you named it Bob's Best Ironing Robot, I'd bet you'd hollar loud and clear if another company came up with the same device and used the same name.
--Ephraim

Posted by: Ephrraim at January 12, 2007 04:14 PM

i'm hoping to be able to run some kind of VoIP-like thing on an apple phone product some day (of course Cingular, etc want VoIP locked out). If apple concedes that the Cisco product is a VoIP product we'll never ever see VoIP on an apple phone. Which speaks volumes for the restrictions (code, etc) that has everyone excited. This device isn't sounding geek/tinker friendly at all.

Posted by: some guy at January 16, 2007 05:14 AM

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert