Apple, Cisco Settle iPhone Trademark Lawsuit

A number of readers let us know that Cisco and Apple have settled the lawsuit over the use of the iPhone name for Apple's new multimedia phone. The agreement allows Apple and Cisco both to use the iPhone brand on their own products. Also, the companies said they would explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, consumer and business communications. Apple still faces a suit over the name in Canada and one over its touch-screen technology in the UK.

The original

[mu51c10rd]

Here is the original iPhone [streettech.com]. Infogear was purchased by Cisco in 2000, hence they inherited the iPhone name. I used to do tech support for these iPhones back in the day so I did feel some nostalgia when the name was revealed for Apple's new product. Infogear iPhone [archive.org]

Re:Come again?

[Dielectric]

Like just about every field today, touch-sensitive tech is a patent minefield. I'd be willing to bet the UK company is Quantum, which has a whole boatload of touch-patents. It could be a patent on the touch sense methods, or a patent on the use of a touch screen on a cell phone, or anything along those lines. Without more info, it's all just speculation of course, but this is Slashdot so I know I'm in good company.

Re:Come again?

[Andrewm1986]

The patent is about using conductivity to sense when a finger is touching the screen. So it is a specific type of touch screen

Re:Ripped Off Name Problem Fixed...

[juiceCake]

Don't forget the NeoNode [neonode.com], which has been out since July 2004 (or at least version 1 has).

As for the ripping off argument. It's usually absurd. Vague similarities become emotional touch points. Yes, it's true that a lot of people say everyone rips things off from Apple but that's just utter nonsense. Can you imagine if the idea of the icon on a desktop computer or other electronic devices with GUI interfaces was under the stewardship of one company. Many companies use ideas that have already been used by others, and often improve on them (i.e. the iPhone is, at least in my judgment, an improvement on many of things the NeoNode is), or add their own flair to it. I always say, "This will only be cool and great once Apple invents it."

You only have to look at the history of automobiles to see how cross creativity and innovation in action. You don't see many people going on about how Renault invented the dual overhead cam shaft so every other car company that uses DOHC engines RIPPED OFF RENAULT!

Re:Canada one?

[HTH NE1]

Conjunction junction, what's your function?

Apple still faces a suit over the name in Canada and one over its touch-screen technology in the UK.

A summary

[Swift2001]

For those few of you who aren't patent attorneys, which is apparently very rare here, this article is an excellent summary of things.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236 [zdnet.com]

Technically, Cisco had legal control of the name, but in fact, all they did throughout the product cycle was do the bare legal requirements at the last minute, over and over. The fact is, in their filings, they showed the box of an old Skype phone they had brought out a year before, but had not called that. The picture on the cover is a mockup, and you can plainly see that "iPhone" is pasted on the box. They later, in November or December 2006, at the last possible moment, put out the same old unit, in a box that actually said, "iPhone" at last. Apparently, the pdf manual on the website didn't call it that. Looks like a purely legal rush to me, and hardly a real necessity to use that name on an important product. It looks, yawn, like a cordless phone from one of a dozen manufacturers, and as a Skype phone it's scarcely unique. I don't know how important in the law, but in the real world it sure is. They were actually willing to rebrand something just to farm for dollars, no?

Now, lemme tell you about secret agreements. If Apple had paid a ton of money, you'd be hearing semi-official rumors by now. Sort of like, "See how much our lawyers gouged out of them?" They would be officially denied, but insiders would have a good idea. The lack of even inflated figures, that the PR department denies after the rumor has had a chance to percolate, kind of says, "They caved" to me.

Whatever a patent attorney would say about this case, it's clear that either through personal animosity, or the desire to make a buck, Cisco put up a legal roadblock. If it was important to the Cisco brand, they would have put up a huge fight, and Apple probably would have had no choice but to back off. Possession being 9/10 of the law and all. But it's not important to Cisco, they were just playing games.

The rumors of the "iPhone" were never confirmed by Apple, but everybody used it. It didn't officially exist and it was already branded. I'm sure they had a name in reserve, if Cisco wanted to play hardball, and make the prospective of maybe losing the case in a couple of years and having to pay Cisco x dollars per phone, or shut down the iPhone until it could be renamed, or some other disaster. But Cisco just had bluster.

Now, why is it that Linksys routers are unique for their total lack of Mac support? I mean, you can use them, but you have to dust off the geek to get him going.