apple had to have known about cisco's iphone. so why did it use that name yesterday knwoing that a lawsuit was sure to come?

here's my take, and i think it's a brilliant move on apple's end.

the product hasn't been released yet, and still needs a few tweaks for it to be ready for the june release. however, the first bang is always the biggest bang, and apple needed to make a loud noise about this phone. by using the the name iphone in the announcements yesterday, apple more than assured themselves the name "iphone" to be connected by the public to their phone, not cisco's phone. your brand is what people perceive it to be, not necessarily what it is in reality. no one knows about cisco's phone. however, after yesterday, even if apple agrees to change the name of the phone to "apple phone" in june, people would no doubt still call it 'iphone', even though its real name is "apple phone". meanwhile, cisco's phone will be named "iphone", but no one will know about it. and when they do, they will think of it as "the other iphone", or "cisco's voip phone".

in essence, even though apple doesn't technically own the name 'iphone', it actually does because that's what the public will be calling it.

If Cisco's phone will do Voice Over IP, why can't Apple and Cisco work out a deal where Apple would use "iPhone" like all it's othe "i" products and Cisco use "iP Phone" which describes what it really does. Or maybe "eyePhone"? And when did Cisco trademark "iPhone"? Could it have been right after Apple introduced the iPod??

I think this is just about to become interesting. I found a link to the NetGear patent, which by the way is for the term, "iphonenetwork", not "iphone". http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75501345. It's status with the patent office, "abandoned". I also read that Apple had filed for the trademark overseas a few months ago. Then Cisco introduces an "iPhone" in December. So the question is, who is really doing the infringing?

Much ado about nothing. First, in order to sue and win you have to show damages. There is NO doubt anyone would confuse the Cisco iPhone for an Apple iPhone. End of argument. Put the apple logo before the word "iPhone." I don't see Cisco winning this fight. Even if they do there won't be any damages. It won't effect Apple shares in my opinion.

According to Cisco's website, they acquired a company that has owned the trademark since 1996. I disagree that there aren't damages, it's just that in this case the damages aren't easy to quantify since they represent potential loss of future earnings. Additionally I disagree that consumers will fail to get the two confused, Cisco supposedly has been selling their iphone through Linksys since last year which is obviously their consumer oriented division which says to me that the products would be showing up in the same retails spaces and so forth. Cisco's announcement also mentions that they had been negotiating with Apple "in good faith" for some time on the name. If Apple just decided to go forward anyway without a trademark I'm not sure how this will stand up in court. It will be interesting to see what Apple's response is.

Surele,
I read your 'Mel" article, then the 'Apple." You're a fine writer and,of course, a professional one.

My enthusiastic thanks for the former. I have hated that man for a long time and the more come-up-ance he gets, the better. I'm going to be 75 and I've fought those friggin antisemites all my life.

My husband and I lived in Bavaria for a year and a half in 1965-66 when ROTC required it and we went to the concentration camps where red Cannas had been planted in the blood ditches. Surreal, of course.

I wish you well.

Miriam