Iphone And Cisco -- Engadget Mobile

iphone,cisco posts

Apple and Cisco settle! iPhone name to be used by both

by Ryan Block posted Feb 21st 2007 @ 9:42PM

Here's one we didn't exactly see coming (at least not like this): Apple and Cisco have settled that "silly" lawsuit, with Apple agreeing to guarantee the exploration of "wide-ranging 'interoperability' between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications" according to the WSJ. We don't know exactly what that means, but it doesn't sound fantastic for Jobs, who we're sure wanted to have exclusivity over the name without cutting a partnership with Cisco, and didn't want to have to pay a red cent for it. But this does sound a lot like what Cisco wanted initially from Apple, and might possibly wind up in some kind of SIP / VoIP solution that allows iPhones and iPhones to communicate. Apparently both will make use of the trademark in the market (i.e. Apple's and Cisco's iPhones will both continue to be iPhones), and all's well that ends non-litigious.

[Thanks, Nick and Jay]

Cisco delays Apple iPhone lawsuit, again

by Thomas Ricker posted Feb 16th 2007 @ 6:12AM

For those of you eagerly awaiting the result of the the iPhone trademark dispute today... well, you'll have to keep waiting. Cisco extended the time for Apple's response to its iPhone lawsuit until Wednesday, February 21st. In a statement released this morning, Cisco states that they are "fully committed to using the extra time to reach a mutually beneficial resolution." With these favored children of Silicon Valley separated by just a few miles drive, you'd think they could have hammered out an agreement over a few beers by now. But with the discussion dealing not only with trademark rights, but also with "interoperability," the settlement is likely to include more than just a one-off cash settlement.

Cisco might have lost iPhone trademark in '06

by Paul Miller posted Jan 13th 2007 @ 1:07PM

Apparently Cisco has more "iPhone" trouble in store for it than just that prior art dispute we mentioned yesterday. In order to keep a trademark alive, you have to file a "Declaration of Use" with the US Patent and Trademark office every six years or forfeit the trademark. On 11/16/2005 Cisco missed that deadline, but was granted a six month grace period, which it just barely squeezed through. Unfortunately for Cisco, a "Declaration of Use" requires demonstration of active use, under penalty of perjury. Cisco merely slapped an iPhone sticker onto an existing VoIP handset it was producing (shown above), but at the time hadn't put an actual iPhone product on shelves for a good long while. This jeopardizes the legitimacy of the trademark, and with Ocean Telecom Services LLC -- which is thought by most to be a front company for Apple -- next in line for the name, it's looking like anyone's game at this point. But for the sake of our own sanity, can we wrap this one up soon, guys? We were kind of hoping to spend the day resting up from CES and playing that new Gears of War map pack instead of reporting such minute developments. Oh well, what are you gonna do?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle

by Paul Miller posted Jan 10th 2007 @ 11:47PM

Rumors are rampant as to just what Cisco wanted from Apple in exchange for some trademark sharing, and now Mark Chandler, SVP of Cisco, has weighed in with his own take on the situation. Apparently Cisco wasn't hitting up Apple for cash, asking for royalties or hedging for an IT contract -- or at least none of those were "issues at the table" and keeping them from an agreement, so there's always the slight chance a couple such bribes were already givens. Apparently what Cisco was actually out for was an "open approach," with Apple opening up its iPhone enough to allow interoperability with Cisco's offering. "We wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony." Mark's argument is that with the aggressive way Apple tends to protect its IP, even to the point of bragging about the 200+ patents in the iPhone that it plans on protecting, Apple should do Cisco more courtesy than announcing an iPhone without wrapping up talks in actual licensing -- talks which were apparently "substantive" as late as 8pm on Monday, when Cisco made its final demands. No word on how this is going forward, but it's clear something's gotta give, and Cisco's 11-year-old trademark sure looks to have the upper hand.

[Via Techmeme]

Cisco sues Apple for trademark infringement: ruh roh!

by Paul Miller posted Jan 10th 2007 @ 6:49PM

"It is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document." Not so much. We're not quite sure what broke down in talks between Cisco and Apple, but they ain't playing friendly no more. Cisco just announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Northern California to prevent Apple from infringing upon its registered iPhone trademark. The word yesterday was that Apple and Cisco had been involved in "extensive discussions," and that they were expecting Apple to sign up for whatever final agreement they proposed. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," says Mark Chandler of Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." Obviously all we've heard so far is Cisco spin on the situation, but so far it sounds like they're being fairly reasonable with Apple on this -- it is their own dang trademark after all. So what gives, Apple?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]