[kwill]

What brand? In the public's mind, iPhone has always been associated with Apple. Cisco's recent iPhone offering was a lame attempt to profit from the hype. It will die on the vine and all they'll wind up with a name on paper.
Call it Apple Phone and be done with it. The "i" is simply not worth the licensing hassles. And we all know there is no need to drive up the cost of the phone further. Apple will get lots of free press over the name change and still has six months to create proper packaging. No savvy follower of events really expected Apple to really use the name iPhone anyway.
OK Steve, focus. You can end this ordeal in a day. Take a deep breath. Erase the "i" and draw an Apple. See, it even looks better. You can even sell all the third-tier domains and international trademarks you've parked back to Cisco for little profit. Now, does everybody feel better?

[veggiedude]

Quote:

---

Maybe they'll rename it "Apple iPhone" or "actual apple logo iPhone".

---

I think that is only natural. Remember, there was a product called "Connectix Virtual PC", because the name 'Virtual PC' was trademarked by someone else.

[osxfoundry]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Cisco will probably still ask for damage because of the announcement.

---

I think it needs to be on sale first. After seeing Apples phone UI, People with Cisco phones should sue
Cisco for bad UI. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

---

Probably right. (from Yahoo news)
"Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco's iPhone trademark."
I think it would look even cooler with the apple logo in front of Phone.
This way you don't call it a Apple Computer Phone" but Apple phone /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[warfang]

This reminds me of the iTools name fiasco from some years back. There's really two perfect names for this phone, but one would cause confusion for current Apple users, and the other a bruise to Steve's ego: AppleTalk and NEWTON .
Never happen. Since it's running OSX, how about Xphone? X is much cooler than i. "i" is sooo 90's. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

1. I don't see Apple Inc.'s name or logo anywhere on the photos/drawings. Only Cingular. Has Cingular been named in the suit, since they seem to be more tightly branded with the offending product?
2. On the iPhone tab of Apple's site, at the bottom of the page it says:

Quote:

---

This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

---

Clearly, Apple is advertising a virtual product. If the FCC doesn't authorize it (but does authorize something else--the Apple Phone, perhaps) then at most Cisco can complain that Apple tarnished their image with an ad campaign for a non-existent device. And Apple, Inc. can offer that statement as proof that they never truly infringed on any trade name.

[MacGod]

Quote:

---

Actually I think it is called the "Apple iPhone".
I also noticed that photos of the Apple iPhone never show the Back.
the word "iPhone" is not written anywhere on the iPhone photos on the web site.

---

Engadget has pix of it up here. Here is one of the back-there's nothing at all written on there-just an Apple logo.

[jgraham]

Quote:

---

What brand? In the public's mind, iphone has always been associated with Apple. Cisco's recent iPhone offering was a lame attempt to profit from the hype. It will die on the vine and all they'll wind up with a name on paper.

---

Just a note Cisco and Apple are not the only ones using the iphone name.
If Cisco sat on the name without getting royalties then why should Apple pay.
Take a look at this http://www.comwave.n...S/iPhone/iPhone[u]mobile.htm
And this http://blogs.zdnet.c...lephony/?p=1371

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

I also noticed that photos of the Apple iPhone never show the Back.
the word "iPhone" is not written anywhere on the iPhone photos on the web site.

---

Yeah, I noticed that too. No iPhone name on the phone itself. No Apple logo!
Remember when everybody made jokes about how Microsoft must be ashamed of the Zune because they didn't put their name on it? Just a random thought. Maybe Apple's pulling an iTV ("That's not the final name, folks.")

[kwill]

As early as Monday, Cisco was awaiting signatures on a final agreement. Apparently negotiations fell through when Steve responded with a misinterpreted finger gesture during the Macworld keynote.

[vfx2k4]

Apple's totally in the driver's seat on this one. All Cisco has is a worthless name, Apple has the product. If the settlement terms aren't favorable they can call it whatever they want to and Cisco can enjoy keeping a generic name. This is how most other companies make money- piggybacking off real innovation.

[Nobody]

Cisco reported publicly up until last night they had been in negotiations with Apple regarding usage of the iPhone name, and based on Jobs' announcement of the iPhone, Cisco expected Apple to come to a written agreement based on Cisco's demands.
It seems Apple's legal department may believe that Cisco may not be a clear cut legal holder of the iPhone name. To hold the name legally it would have to be trademarked. It would also have to be trademarked to reflect the specific criteria for what an iPhone would be as a product.
If Cisco just trademarked the name to put obstacles in front of Apple hoping Apple would buy it from them later, or trying for a royalty scheme without any intention of manufacturing a phone themselves, it could be argued in court favoring Apple.
I tend to agree with above posts that this phone could as easily be called ApplePhone (with Apple as a logo) instead of iPhone. It could have a good look and 'ring' to it.
Bjorn

[Maclectic]

Quote:

---

As early as Monday Cisco was awaiting signatures on a final agreement. Apparently negotiations fell through when Steve responded with a misinterpreted finger gesture during the Macworld keynote.

---

ROFLMAO!
Are you sure it wasn't a "pinching" motion? Or maybe that was the sphincter of the Cisco lawyer when he heard Steve use the name.

- Maclectic

[dak]

If Apple agreed not to include feature that the Cisco iPhone has, such as connecting to Skype and VOIP, as well as voice chat, then the Apple iPhone would be crippled as an internet device. I know Cingular doesn't want the Apple iPhone to have those features either, but hopefully Apple won't cave to them.
This is a great device, and it would be even better if it could work as an internet phone whenever you're in WiFi range. (Because, you know, cell phone calls really suck.)
:d

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Maybe Apple's pulling an iTV ("That's not the final name, folks.")

---

Hype and buzz is great marketing.
Bjorn