[gambit]

This is dumb.... on Apple's part.
Think about it:
Remember when the iPod came out? People were like: wow, that's a bizarre name for a music player. But, over the course of the iPod's development, the term iPod really did fit because the iPod was more than just a music player.
Flash forward to this past Expo and here we have Steve Jobs introducing a product that is more iPod than the iPod!
This really isn't an iPhone, so it doesn't make sense that Apple is chasing that name. This is a brand new platform that can also be used as a phone, so why call it an iPhone when that capability is just one of the many features?
Shooot... if I were Apple, I'd find out who owns the rights to iPod and I would just use that.
Wait, They already OWN iPod?? Ooooooohhhh.....

/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But, does anybody see my point? Why call something that is a music player foremost something so vague such as iPod, and then name a product that IS all-encompassing something as specific as iPhone??


Regardless of what it's called, it's going to be a huge hit. I can't wait to get mine.

Oh! Maybe they should call it iLife mobile. Ooooh. I like the sound of that. iLife mobile.
(But then I'd call it the iPhone for short. haha)

[brycesteiner]

Quote:

---

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.

---

Perhaps some believe that, but Linksys has had this for sale for a month. I suppose that means it has also been mfg for at least a month.
I think they should call it iTalk
Bryce

[folklore]

Like others, I'm surprised that Apple went with iPhone - for legal and branding reasons.
Cisco had to file the lawsuit to protect their brand. It's a no-brainer from their perspective - their lawyers would have been negligent to not file this suit. I'd like to read the actual filing to see if they're asking for damages or merely injunctive relief.
In any event, "iPhone" has been Cisco's for a very long time, and Apple knew it going into the keynote.
My best guess is that there are other products out there called iPhone that Cisco hasn't brought suit against. In order to protect a trademark, you have to sue pretty much anyone and everyone that infringes on it or you lose it. (Gross generalization, but basically accurate).

[pixelcruncher]

Looks like negotiations went up to the final hour, and Cisco dropped something in Apple's lap that they didn't like. Maybe Apple feels that Cisco was negotiating in bad faith by upping their demands at the last minute and forcing Apple to sign something that was beyond Apple's expectations based on previous talks.
Either way, it seems a boneheaded play on Apple's part. Everybody is going to be shaking their head wondering "What were they thinking?" Steve Jobs looks like a megalomaniac for thumbing his nose at trademark law (I'm just saying that's how it will be spun). Apple looks like they need a refresher course in Business 101 (again, people will be looking to take Apple down a peg).
Cisco did what they had to do to protect their trademark. They have to defend it or risk losing it. Apple can't possibly lay claim to i"anything" unless they have trademarked them all. If Apple even thought for a second that they owned i"anything", they would have had to have sued every single company and person that used an i"anything" name for their product (but this is impossible in trademark law, anyway).
If this gets settled, it won't be on Apple's terms. Cisco has a slam dunk. In the long run, though, I don't think Apple has anything to actually worry about. Apples (phone thingy) is going to outlive whatever Cisco is going to call the iPhone.

[tdiddy]

I don't think they have any plans of calling it iPhone in the end. I don't think "Phone" will probably even make it. I'm guessing it will only have an apple logo on the back and will just be called "Apple." iPhone is publicity in the next few months while they run through the FCC stuff and finish the applications. It's like giving a kid a toy without batteries. They'll love it for a few months until the newness wears off. Then you put the batteries in and it's a whole new toy. They've showed us the toy for now and it's called iPhone. In a few months, we'll get the batteries and see what they really have up their black turtleneck sleeve. The phone will probably be only a little part of it. If not, why port OSX down to a mobile version, you could create apps that are close using existing software and just change out the interface a bit. There's something else to it. Probably a mobile tool of some sort that we never realized we needed. Like the random access voicemail thing. A lot of the problems Apple solves are ones that I never realized I had and I wind up going "that's right, that is a pain. I'm glad somebody finally fixed that." We'll see I guess.

[fribhey]

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.

---

you can see photos of the back here:
http://www.engadget....st-iphone-pics/
you also have to remember that this is a prototype and hasn't even gone to production yet because they don't even have approval from the fcc yet.

[OM_user]

Well, I saw this coming. I actually think the name iPhone is stupid anyway. It's time for Apple to start coming up with product names that don't use the i + [product_name] moniker. It's old and played out. It's time to move on to something else.
If they insist on using something with "i" in it, why not call it iPod Phone. That is, after all, kind of what this is. It would capitalize on the brand cachet of the iPod. People who don't follow Apple's product announcements would know immediately what it is if they used that name. There's no-one who hasn't been living in a cave these days who doesn't know the name iPod.
Someone somewhere also suggested the name iPod mobile, which I like the sound of. Or how about Apple mobile. That indicates it's a mobile device, like a phone and internet device; again, what it is.
So, for me, I actually hope they lose this case, just so they change the name to something that actually suggests what it is. The iPhone is waaaay more than just a phone, so why restrict it with that name? After all, they didn't call the iPod iMusic or something narrow like that.

[kwill]

Quote:

---

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.

---

You saw it too? It was 59:38 into the full keynote video.

[jmaynard]

I thought Apple could use iFone instead of iPhone, but found out it is also taken...
According to the updated news story, Apple and Cisco were in negotiations of some kind, and Apple has some legal reasons for challenging Cisco's lawsuit, we'll see..
I did notice just now on the iPhone page at apple.com that they have slapped an "Apple" symble in front of iPhone on the webpage, though the tab at the top just says iPhone, so they may try to trademark @iPhone, but I would think anything with iPhone in it could be challenged in a lawsuit, but in this day, I don't understand tradmark laws at all. could I trademark "computer" and sue people for using that term?
I guess it is more than just the name, part of the trademark has to spell out what the term is being used for, how specific and detailed I don't know... so maybe that is where Apple thinks they have a case to be able to use iPhone for their cell phone,iPod.
I think business is a lot like politics now days, you have to play dirty to win. Being nice and playing by the rules doesn't always win in the end, sometimes you have to play dirty. I just wish the Democrats would learn to play as dirty as the Republicans... but I guess that's another can of worms /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So as much as I would like to support the nice guy, I am hopeing Apple wins--right or wrong!

[lwdesign]

I was very surprised to see Steve announce the iPhone, seeing as Cisco had come out with a phone with the same name just weeks before the keynote address.
Then I saw articles about how Apple and Cisco had been in negotiations for years on the name.
Today, Cisco is suing. I'd really like to hear the true story of this monumental fiasco. Maybe it really is just a PR stunt to gain news time, but I seriously doubt it. It looks more like negotiations gone bad--but if that was the case, why announce the name and not just call it the "iPhone which is soon to have an official product name in June". Steve did it with the iTV, so why make the error of announcing the product name before negotiations were complete?
We're missing a lot of info here folks. Steve should write a short story about the behind the scenes action on this one for us.

[MacTel]

Quote:

---

There is really no other name that would work for the "iPhone" (apple phone? Yuk, Mac phone? Yuk)

---

It has OSX in it so: xPhone /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I don't get why they'd call it the iPhone anyway. Steve said, "It's a phone. It's an iPod. It's a communicator." Why not iMobile? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[splinter]

Quote:

---

Oh! Maybe they should call it iLife mobile. Ooooh. I like the sound of that. iLife mobile.

---

Yeah, me too. Or just iMobile. splinter runs to trademark office - will deal the name for a widescreen iPod I agree that the "phone" name is limiting, as this product does so much more, and it will only get better.
AppleMobile would be a mouthful, but perhaps apropos considering that they went with Apple TV instead of iTV.

[RASTERMAN]

iPod Communicator.
Cheers!
---RASTER