Cisco Sues Apple over use of "iPhone" name

[Newby]

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B05D79CF8%2D7767%2D48E8%2D82BD%2D508F156055EE%7D

Yeeeah. Time to pull my virtual stock out of Apple, but owned.

[iago]

May or may not be meaningful -- Apple is making a cell-phone and Cisco has a VOIP phone.  I'm sure this will resolve itself.

It was only a matter of time before Apple made something called iPhone -- I bet Cisco was just squatting on that trademark waiting

I don't think this'll make any significant impact, though.

[CrAz3D]

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I'm very confident that this person isn't actually right

[Newby]

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I'm very confident that this person isn't actually right

I'm pretty confident, but you never know with lawyers.

[nslay]

Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

I'm very confident that this person isn't actually right

I'm pretty confident, but you never know with lawyers.

yeah, lawyers can twist everything =\

[rabbit]

May or may not be meaningful -- Apple is making a cell-phone and Cisco has a VOIP phone.  I'm sure this will resolve itself.

It was only a matter of time before Apple made something called iPhone -- I bet Cisco was just squatting on that trademark waiting

I don't think this'll make any significant impact, though.

Squatting, my ass.  Cisco has been pumping out iPhone brand stuff for months already.  Not to mention Apple asked for permission to use "iPhone" and then didn't bother to wait for a response before introducing their POS product.

[Newby]

It makes sense, too. IP Phone => IPhone => iPhone.

[trust]

Apple will end up settling/winning this. They'll prevail. It's obvious Cisco is willing to give them the name...since they thought Apple "agreed" after they introduced it as the iPhone. Apple has a big bankroll and will be able to pay any price asked, and if Cisco wants to continue with the lawsuit Apple can fund a better team of lawyers. Plus Apple products are associated with the i prefix. iMac, iPod, iSight, iMovie, iLife, etc. Go Apple!

[Newby]

Plus Apple products are associated with the i prefix. iMac, iPod, iSight, iMovie, iLife, etc. Go Apple!

And Cisco's VOIP Phone is named iPhone. They have the rights to it. Just because Apple does everything else with 'I' doesn't mean Cisco can't.

Apple will settle? Yes. Apple will win in a fight? No.

[iago]

It depends if they figure that people could get confused between a VOIP Phone and a Cell Phone.  Like, there's a reason that "Windows Vista" can have the same name as a Window store: they are distinct. 

Whatever happens, it's going to work out for Apple.

[Newby]

It depends if they figure that people could get confused between a VOIP Phone and a Cell Phone.

That affects the law? Even when Cisco has had that copyrighted name for six years? I hardly think so. But I could be mistaken.

[iago]

It depends if they figure that people could get confused between a VOIP Phone and a Cell Phone.

That affects the law? Even when Cisco has had that copyrighted name for six years? I hardly think so. But I could be mistaken.

Yes, it does.  Ever heard of "Vista Windows"?  They make the glass things you put in walls.  Why can't they sue Microsoft for Windows Vista?  Because they're distinct products.  (www.vistawindows.com)

[Newby]

Did they try? Or are you simply stating that? I'm curious; I never saw that in the news. :|

[CrAz3D]

Apple will end up settling/winning this. They'll prevail. It's obvious Cisco is willing to give them the name...since they thought Apple "agreed" after they introduced it as the iPhone. Apple has a big bankroll and will be able to pay any price asked, and if Cisco wants to continue with the lawsuit Apple can fund a better team of lawyers. Plus Apple products are associated with the i prefix. iMac, iPod, iSight, iMovie, iLife, etc. Go Apple!

I was thinking prevail in a sense of them winning on legal grounds.

I have no doubt that apple will end up with the name, however.  It'll be settled for $500million or so

[Sidoh]

I was thinking prevail in a sense of them winning on legal grounds.

I have no doubt that apple will end up with the name, however.  It'll be settled for $500million or so

You think they'd pay $500 million to own the rights to a name?  I don't...

This was on Colorado's news, I guess.  I saw it on the commercial, but I didn't stick around to watch to story.  I'm sure it would have just been a reiteration anyway.

[iago]

Did they try? Or are you simply stating that? I'm curious; I never saw that in the news. :|

When the name of "Vista" was announced, it was brought up.  But they didn't try suing because they wouldn't have had a case. 

That's not even the best example, it's just the only example I can think of.

[CrAz3D]

I was thinking prevail in a sense of them winning on legal grounds.

I have no doubt that apple will end up with the name, however.  It'll be settled for $500million or so

You think they'd pay $500 million to own the rights to a name?  I don't...

This was on Colorado's news, I guess.  I saw it on the commercial, but I didn't stick around to watch to story.  I'm sure it would have just been a reiteration anyway.

Maybe not that exact figure, but it will be a big number otherwise they won't be able to use it.

[Newby]

When the name of "Vista" was announced, it was brought up.  But they didn't try suing because they wouldn't have had a case. 

No, more like Microsoft lawyers would run them out of business before they even came close to winning a case.

[Furious]

Haha...it will interesting to see which way this goes.

[Skywing]

You think they'd pay $500 million to own the rights to a name?  I don't...

This was on Colorado's news, I guess.  I saw it on the commercial, but I didn't stick around to watch to story.  I'm sure it would have just been a reiteration anyway.

Actually, catchy, brand-recognized names are worth a non-trivial amount of money in terms of marketing dollars.

[Sidoh]

Actually, catchy, brand-recognized names are worth a non-trivial amount of money in terms of marketing dollars.

Yeah, I'd have guessed that, but they'd pay half a billion dollars just for rights to a name?

[CrAz3D]

Actually, catchy, brand-recognized names are worth a non-trivial amount of money in terms of marketing dollars.

Yeah, I'd have guessed that, but they'd pay half a billion dollars just for rights to a name?

Any idea what the yearly sales of the iPod are?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-01-10-macworld_x.htm

Also Tuesday, the company reported record revenue for the quarter — $5.7 billion, compared with $3.5 billion for the same period in 2004.

All told, Apple has sold 42 million iPods — 76% of them in 2005.

Maye not 500million, but it'll be FRIGGIN high, in the hundreds I'd think.

[Sidoh]

Actually, catchy, brand-recognized names are worth a non-trivial amount of money in terms of marketing dollars.

Yeah, I'd have guessed that, but they'd pay half a billion dollars just for rights to a name?

Any idea what the yearly sales of the iPod are?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-01-10-macworld_x.htm

Also Tuesday, the company reported record revenue for the quarter — $5.7 billion, compared with $3.5 billion for the same period in 2004.

All told, Apple has sold 42 million iPods — 76% of them in 2005.

Maye not 500million, but it'll be FRIGGIN high, in the hundreds I'd think.

That's gross revenue, though.

Even if they are rich, I don't think they'd drop anywhere close to $500 million for rights on a name.  I'm no lawyer or economist, but I still don't think so... we'll see I guess, eh?

[trust]

I think they would simply because the name is critical to it doing well. However, I agree with iago that they do have a court case (as I've heard that clause before as well) and Apple probably won't have to pay such a  large amount.

[Newby]

I think they would simply because the name is critical to it doing well. However, I agree with iago that they do have a court case (as I've heard that clause before as well) and Apple probably won't have to pay such a  large amount.

The thing is that Cisco has had rights to the name for six years. I didn't even hear about the iPod until 2001-ish.

[CrAz3D]

Actually, catchy, brand-recognized names are worth a non-trivial amount of money in terms of marketing dollars.

Yeah, I'd have guessed that, but they'd pay half a billion dollars just for rights to a name?

Any idea what the yearly sales of the iPod are?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-01-10-macworld_x.htm

Also Tuesday, the company reported record revenue for the quarter — $5.7 billion, compared with $3.5 billion for the same period in 2004.

All told, Apple has sold 42 million iPods — 76% of them in 2005.

Maye not 500million, but it'll be FRIGGIN high, in the hundreds I'd think.

That's gross revenue, though.

Even if they are rich, I don't think they'd drop anywhere close to $500 million for rights on a name.  I'm no lawyer or economist, but I still don't think so... we'll see I guess, eh?

Up through 2005 Apple sold 42million units.  What is the average price of an iPod?...like $250 ish?  (when considering the expensive ones down to the cheap shuffles).  That's $10billion there.  So, maybe not $500million, but it'll be high.

[Super_X]

Actually, catchy, brand-recognized names are worth a non-trivial amount of money in terms of marketing dollars.

Yeah, I'd have guessed that, but they'd pay half a billion dollars just for rights to a name?

Any idea what the yearly sales of the iPod are?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-01-10-macworld_x.htm

Also Tuesday, the company reported record revenue for the quarter — $5.7 billion, compared with $3.5 billion for the same period in 2004.

All told, Apple has sold 42 million iPods — 76% of them in 2005.

Maye not 500million, but it'll be FRIGGIN high, in the hundreds I'd think.

That's gross revenue, though.

Even if they are rich, I don't think they'd drop anywhere close to $500 million for rights on a name.  I'm no lawyer or economist, but I still don't think so... we'll see I guess, eh?

Up through 2005 Apple sold 42million units.  What is the average price of an iPod?...like $250 ish?  (when considering the expensive ones down to the cheap shuffles).  That's $10billion there.  So, maybe not $500million, but it'll be high.

Gross means before taxes, before paying employees, and suplies. I'm sure they make far less than that as profet.