Battle for iPhone … Cisco Sues Apple

58 thoughts on “Battle for iPhone … Cisco Sues Apple”

  1. iPod Communicator?

    I really didn’t like the name iPhone to begin with. (I though MacBook Pro was a pretty choice also.) It’s so much more then just a phone or a smart phone for that matter. Further, the phone features are its weakest features IMHO. Hearing that they didn’t have permission and that Cisco is (rightfully) suing just blows my mind. What were they thinking?

  2. In some other forums, some believe Apple could win this because they are soooo associated with the letter “i”. Trademark law turns in many different ways. Wasn’t your first thought when Cisco introduced iPhone, or saw the announcement headline, Apple?

  3. iPhone is not the right name anyway. It is more than a phone.
    iMobile?
    Personal iMac?
    iMac Mobile?

    Apple should just take all the money they would spend on legal fees and pay a branding firm to come up with a different name. They would end up with a cool name like iViagra or iWi-Fi.

  4. Here’s the thing about this: it really doesn’t matter all that much what Apple or Cisco choose to do now. Apple has already come out with an absolute killer of a launch, and branded the thing deep into the minds of all who lust after it.

    It IS the iPhone, now and forever – no matter who wins or how Apple may or may not be required to re-label it.

    Apple could even quietly concede, call it the “Apple Phone” and move on, they’ve already won.

    You just know that 2 years from now, when the product has become firmly established as a major game-changer and the defining geek gadget of the age, everyone will be calling it the iPhone anyway. What the heck else would one call it?

    If Jobs was crazy to come out and call it the iPhone, knowing that Cisco would go nuts, perhaps he was crazy like a fox…

  5. Yeah, but one bad Apple Inc in Cisco’s barrel could translate into future damages in an emerging VoIP market. Cisco’s holding the winning hand. Just need not to blink or leave the table too soon.

    Apple’s maybe crossed an expensive legal line… Wouldn’t be the first time. Won’t be the last.

    Still, everyone who gives a rip identifies the “iPhone” with Apple.

  6. They didn’t call iPod the “iPlayer”, to the points of so many above, “iPhone” does not even make sense here.

    To me, the critical point of this device is ACCESS. If we take this and go with the cliched Latin route, we get “Accesio”…a dumb name, and also one already registered by a global consulting firm. But what’s most interesting about this is another Latin meaning for the term…that is”appendage”. Sorry, but I personally find that cool as shit, as lame as the name would be.

    Other pivot points for me are the notions of a connection, a link, an enabler, a partner (apologies, T-Mobile)…someone smarter than myself with come up with something.

  7. Apple can’t steal someone else’s property (trademark) just because they’re kewl. 😉

    Cisco has owned that brand for a long time and used it in commerce. It doesn’t matter if everyone calls Apple’s gadget the iPhone instead of Cisco’s. Cisco can still sue Apple if they use it. I’ll bet Cisco has a lot of lawyers…

    BTW, my vote is iHype

  8. Well, that definitely backs up the theory that Cisco released its own iPhone for negotiating leverage. They aren’t planning on rolling over here, apparently, and by faux-establishing their product in the market, they can claim legitimate consumer confusion due to the name.

  9. I was thinking of something along the lines of the iLife branding. As stated above it’s this cool slick device that is user friendly, helps you through your day and it also can make phone calls. Maybe iLife mobile, iLifeGo, iLifePod or iMove. I think a name that invokes a sense of action is good line to follow.

  10. I second the idea for aPhone because a is logical for apple and besides. It is really a phone.

    Altneratively jPhone (because j comes after i so it must be newer and better).

  11. okay who remembers the Cisco iPhone? I do, thanks to the prank that GIzmodo did? Who cares! Apple did what it did and was very smart about it.

    What ever they call the Apple phone later wont matter and Cisco’s iphone will be long gone and dead by June.

    Actually if you think about it Apple does have a legitimate claim on the name. Ask anyone in the street about the name iPhone. The answer will be 100% = Apple.

    Maybe Cisco was taking advantage of Apple’s good marketing capital and name recognition to get their crappy VOIP out. The timing of Ciscos iPhone launch is suspicious as they knew that something big was happening at Apple.

  12. To someone who posted about iRobot – that is a real company. Check it out for yourself at http://www.irobot.com

    AS for iPhone, as much as I think iPhone is a perfectly fine name for Apple’s mobile phone, they cannot just “steal” Cisco’s copyright/trademark.

    How would Apple feel if SanDisk and Creative Labs called their music players iPods???

  13. Wouldn’t the fact that Average Joe now associates iPhone with Apple make a damages claim even larger for Cisco?

    Actually if you think about it Apple does have a legitimate claim on the name. Ask anyone in the street about the name iPhone. The answer will be 100% = Apple<<

  14. iPod mobile makes the most sense

    iPod shuffle,
    iPod nano,
    iPod video,
    and the new iPod mobile

    They need to leverage their most successful brand – iPod.

    All their computers have Mac in the name now.
    It seems like they will probably use Apple in the name of all their home media devices.
    The iPod branding should be used for all their portable devices.

  15. i agree with alex, it should be called MacPhone, like MacBook. MacPhone Pro comes with 3G.

    iPod mobile would be just another iPod, wouldn’t come with a boost and a new name. everybody knows what an iPod is, but not everyone has heard of a MacBook. the name MacPhone might even raise the sales for the MacBook.

    Cisco will sue Apple and they won’t be on good terms, they would still have to change the name of their iPhone.

  16. Didn’t Apple recently try to stop companies from using the term “podcast,” essentially arguing that it infringed upon the “iPod” copyright?

    Seriously, you can’t have it both ways, and Apple has VERY aggressively defended its own copyrights.

    Apple’s going to lose. Cisco is most definitely in the right.

  17. I have to disagree with you karmel. If calling this thing iPod mobile makes it just another iPod, then calling it MacPhone makes it just another Mac. No more of an advantage either way. And since Jobs stated this thing is the best iPod they’ve ever built, I’d stick with with the iPod line of naming.

    In reality though, it is equal part iPod and Mac. Perhaps naming it MacPod would be the way to go.

  18. Could it be that Apple is effecting the smartest brand transition ever (from “i” to apple?) for all its consumer products? Because the more devices they make, the harder it will be to name them “iThings” and a better strategy would be to name them “appleThings”.

    And look at what Apple did in the Mac show –

    1. They dropped the name computer from their company name (apple computer is simply apple now)

    2. They already called their iTV as appleTV and Jobs made a joke about mixing up the names in the presentation.

    3. They might actually be using the public, lawsuit with cisco to market this transition for their phone specifically and al their prducts in general. Apple would willingly comply later, blame cisco and name its phone – apple phone!

    But the publicity and the buzz would create the perfect transiton for apple too! People themselves would joke about both iPhone and applePhone (like Jobs himself did with iTV/appleTV) until they start calling things simply appleThings. Wicked.

  19. You know, that’s almost twisted enough to work. And you know what would be even more twisted? If Cisco was a willing partipant in this little dance. Say the “settlement” is some really good deal down the road for playing the bad guy (“See, we made up and are now working together”).

    I guess it’s time to push back from the computer now :^)

  20. Brilliant comment, Prashanth. It explains the choice of Apple TV over iTV and Apple’s apparent sloppiness around the iPhone mark. Apple is many things, but sloppy about a product launch is not one of them.

    The iPod is still cool but the ubiquity of iEverythingElse has cheapened the brand. Time to move on to appleThings.

  21. True Mike, and wonderful Prashanth. Compare the two sites for iphone and apple tv http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/appletv/ and notice the logo. Why does the iPhone have the Apple logo before its name? Isn’t it similar to the Apple TV? Should it be called Apple iPhone, or was the logo put there for testing and it looked cool? The iPod logo does not have Apple in front of it. Is it easier to call it an Apple Phone rather than Apple iPhone?

    And btw everything is CompanyName ThingName nowadays, take Google Search, Google Mail, Google Talk, Google Calendar, Google Whatever, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Live Search, Windows Live Thing, or Microsoft Things, Yahoo! Things. It would very much make sense for Apple to make the move, that is why Computers was taken out of their company name, so that they would not have two words like the confusion of Windows Live Thing.

  22. Of course Cisco sues. It’s not a question of right and wrong. It’s a question of money, either they’ll settle for the money, or Cisco sues them for the money.

    Call it what you want, but “being friendly” is just dumb when Apple is literally giving away money.

  23. The intent of a Trademark is to keep one company from capitalizing on another companies established brand name. iPhone is immediately associated with Apple.

    Put iPhone into Google. What’s the first hit?
    Argument solved.

    In this interpretation, Cisco is in Trademark violation.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.