Cisco and Apple Reach a Deal
Cisco’s lawsuit for trademark infringement has finally been dismissed, and both Apple Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. have agreed to share the iPhone name, with possible interoperability in the future.
The companies have been fighting for rights of the name since the day after Apple announced the iPhone at last month’s Macworld Expo in San Francisco, and for a time it looked as though Apple was going to have to change the name of their upcoming mobile phone.
Cisco Systems acquired the iPhone name back in 2000 when they bought out Infogear and, six years later, all the talk of a possible iPhone from Apple was most likely the catalyst for Cisco’s Linksys division to unleash their VoIP dual-mode cordless phones with the name iPhone.
Apple was given two dates to respond to Cisco and their terms, but both were pushed back by Cisco to allow Apple more time to come to an agreement. The two then came to the agreement that both companies could use the iPhone name on any of their products throughout the world.
“Under the agreement, both companies are free to use the iPhone trademark on their products throughout the world. Both companies acknowledge the trademark ownership rights that have been granted, and each side will dismiss any pending actions regarding the trademark,” the companies said in a statement.
When Cisco filed the lawsuit last month, they claimed Apple’s use of the name iPhone was a “willful and malicious” violation of a trademark they had owned since 2000. Apple’s reponse to this was that the lawsuit was “silly,” based on the fact that the two devices offered by both companies would not compete with each other because they operate over different networks.
Unfortunately, no other details of the lawsuit have been passed on, so it’s hard to determine whether the companies came to an out-of-court settlement or not, although this is the most likely situation.
There is now some speculation that Google played a part in the agreement between the two companies, as Google is a major customer of Cisco’s products and Google CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt is on Apple’s board of directors.
Cisco’s Game?
While Cisco has technically lost this court case, they have many gains from it, one being free publicity.
Since the announcement of the Apple iPhone, Google’s search for the product has toppled that of the term “iPod,” and anyone looking for iPhone on the search engine will no doubt have come across Cisco’s product at some point. It’s also great news for the networking giants, as anyone looking for wireless VoIP phones that work with Skype and other major VoIP providers will now already know of Cisco’s iPhone without having to put much research in, offering yet more free publicity for Cisco and Linksys.
What do the readers of Apple Matters think? Did Cisco play some sort of “game,” purely assuming last year that Apple would release the iPhone at some point, or is it all just a nice coincidence for them?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Of course Cisco played a “game”. Rumours of the iPhone have been around for years, and when it was finally looking like Apple was going to release an iPhone, Cisco tried to revive its trademark by rebranding an _existing_ product with the iPhone name. It was all a stupid patent/trademark game that probably got Cisco a bundle of cash from Apple. Unethical.
Cisco had every right to do what it wanted with its OWN trademark, including capitalizing on Apple’s potential infringement.
Unethical would be Apple trying to own the word “pod” like when it sued that company for a device totally unrelated to the iPod.
“Cisco’s lawsuit for trademark infringement has finally been dismissed…”
“While Cisco has technically lost this court case…”
The lawsuit was settled. While both corporations will ask a judge to dismiss their respective suits, the opening sentence implies facts which do not exist. And no one “lost.”
”...all the talk of a possible iPhone from Apple was most likely the catalyst for Cisco’s Linksys division to unleash their VoIP dual-mode cordless phones with the name iPhone.”
“There is now some speculation that Google played a part in the agreement between the two companies, as Google is a major customer of Cisco’s products and Google CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt is on Apple’s board of directors.”
You know, if you don’t know a damn thing about it, it’s OK not to speculate.
“Unfortunately, no other details of the lawsuit have been passed on, so it’s hard to determine whether the companies came to an out-of-court settlement or not, although this is the most likely situation.”
Um, OK, again, they did come to an out-of-court settlement. If you’re attempting to raise the question of whether or not Apple paid Cisco for the right to use the trademark freely, those words are not the ones you wanted to use.
The best sentence on this subject was written by the Macalope:
The Macalope doesn’t know the terms of the deal any more than Enderle does, but whatever [Cisco] got, it was adequately compensated for half an hour of Photoshopping.
We suddenly realise Cisco has been terribly clever about all this.
http://www.macalope.com/?p=177
Cisco knew that its suit was very weak. There were many issues regarding their trademark filing and the fact that the “iPhone” moniker was a sticker on the OUTSIDE of the shrink wrap in the picture with the trademark renewal filing would create all kinds of problems for them. Given that there was also a deadline issue with the renewal filing, the case was on extremely shaky ground.
That said, Apple also didn’t want to spend tons and tons of money on a suit that could drag on and on.
The likely scenario is Apple went to Cisco and said “We have all this documentation to show that you weren’t using the trademark, and you know you have a weak case. Let’s save us both a lot of money and work together on a settlement that will make everyone happy.”
They both save money on lawsuits and Cisco probably gets a nice little chunk of pocket changes. Everyone’s happy.
Anyone else seeing a Team America: World Police scene with Jobs and the exec of Cisco? “OK, you can have the name, but first you must prove yourself to me”