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

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 "interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise 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]

[Rollins @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:12AM]

That could possibly be true, if you were the spammer whose e-mail was posted. Good luck trying to sue on the behalf of what was most likely a bot.

[Matt @ Feb 22nd 2007 1:47AM]

I was rooting for Cisco, but there were lots of intricacies to the trademark law that Apple had leaning in their favor.

As for RayWA...first off, that link was certainly spam.

Second, even if you think posting that guy's email wasn't fair, U.S. courts have consistently ruled that the operators of websites containing comment functionality or message boards cannot be held liable for the actions of their users, even in cases where blatantly false and defamatory information is published. Good luck getting Engadget into a courtroom.

[holyhell @ Feb 22nd 2007 3:39AM]

@RayWA

Lay off drinking the bong water.

[akintz @ Feb 21st 2007 9:52PM]

So it's going to continue that everyone will recognize Apple's iPhone and stare at you blankly when you mention that Cisco makes one too?

[Jamus @ Feb 21st 2007 10:05PM]

I can see it now...

Christmas 2007. Some late shopping parent/spouse/etc out shopping for a teenager/wife/etc's wishlist craps a brick when they find an "iPhone" on sale in the clearance bin at a Best Buy. Promptly takes it home beaming with pride for getting such a steal, only to get a big surprise when the receiver opens the gift. "Merry Christmas! I got you an iPhone!" Yippeee!

Which one do you think consumers will be thinking about when they hear the word "iPhone"?

[DannyMac @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:00PM]

LOL, I was about to post a similar comment when I read the article on the front page. I totally agree, this might result in consumer confusion.

[Nikos @ Feb 22nd 2007 11:31PM]

Actually it will go more like this.

Apple iPhone on Ebay...and you'll get a rotten apple from the grocery store with that Cisco iPhone in the mail :)

[Rollins @ Feb 21st 2007 10:07PM]

So, basically, Apple agreed to a deal just to get Cisco off their backs. I highly doubt that Apple will do anything to make good on the terms of the agreement, assuming that Cisco won't have the guts to call them on it.

[Javaflash @ Feb 21st 2007 10:15PM]

This lawsuit has settlement written all over it since day one. The only unknown is the exact term. From what I read so far, AAPL lost big time. I was shocked. No wonder it took them forever to sign these papers.

[TIm @ Feb 21st 2007 10:15PM]

Wow, I can't believe how much publicity the Cisco iPhone is getting
from this... it's almost in their interests to drag this out as long as possible. Every development gets publicity.

http://bla.st/iphone/

[JasonNYCity @ Feb 21st 2007 10:21PM]

I'm a disgusting spammer, please spam me back: [e-mail]

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Feb 21st 2007 10:44PM]

There's no such thing as a disgusting spammer, as the word spammer means disgusting. How can you possibly be a disgusting disgusting?

[Jake @ Feb 21st 2007 10:47PM]

Looks like the wifi in the device will have alot more uses than surfing the web. How exciting a device to run your appliances and secuirity systems in your home!!

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Feb 21st 2007 10:47PM]

This story has just reminded me of somthing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdUGvHd3glw iPhone bitch, noogies!!!

[Alex Padilla @ Feb 21st 2007 10:54PM]

Ah, I love SuperNews. It's the greatest cartoon on the planet...

"What's that, Steve?!"
"It's an iHouse, Bill!"
"But it doesn't have any windows!"
"EXACTLY! AHAHAHAHAHA!"

[Fabrice @ Feb 21st 2007 11:00PM]

"wide-ranging 'interoperability' between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications"... hmmm.
that can mean anything. I can use Vonage to call my cellphone and here you go : interoperability.
I still do not believe Steve Jobs is the kind of man to cut into his company's profit over a brandname. There GOT to be something else behind that noone knows yet... The simplest explanation being always the most probable, i think Cisco's case was weaker that it looked initially. They may have had the brandname but they didn't use it in time. And to save face, they are the one cutting a deal with Apple who then got a stronger hand.
My 2 cents...

[riggs @ Feb 21st 2007 11:02PM]

now only if we can sue everyone who uses the phrase "iphone rip-off"

[Brian @ Feb 21st 2007 11:15PM]

I still say Apple should have just told Cisco to shove it. When Cisco started getting grabby and wanting cash and interoperability, Apple could have just dropped the name in favor of ApplePhone. This way they could have continued the branding thing with the AppleTV. Plus, everyone would call it the iPhone anyways...

[Michael E. Asbury @ Feb 23rd 2007 8:06AM]

a better nema would have been apple core.....

[Gaurav @ Feb 21st 2007 11:31PM]

GO APPLE AND CISCO, SETTLE THINGS LIKE MEN AND NOT LITTLE BABIES!! WOOT

[mcloki @ Feb 21st 2007 11:56PM]

I'm sure that this unholy matrimony is going to go along just swimmingly. Steve and Apple have such a great reputation of working closely with the people and companies they willingly partner with. (ATI, anyone) You're swimming with sharks now Cisco and I think this is the kind of shark that has a "frickin" laser on his head. Just be quiet and try to not have him notice you. Can't wait for the press release.

[Diego @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:32AM]

"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"

I don't think Jobs would really care about this. They would have been aware about Cisco owning the name iPhone. They then took them on because they wanted it. The fact that they can share it will not matter, because in the end, who do you think people will think about when someone says iPhone? I think Apple's iPhone will win the naming rights in people's minds.

[mike @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:44AM]

They would have been aware about Cisco owning the name iPhone. They then took them on because they wanted it

--

Cisco has already lost the iPhone mindshare war. Guess what... iPhone starts with an 'i'... It's an Apple product.

Cisco can now fade into irrelevance...

[Andrew Stone @ Feb 22nd 2007 2:12AM]

"Cisco can now fade into irrelevance..." says mike...

Might wanna check in to that... Cisco has a market cap of about $110 billion, it is one of the most valuable companies in the world...

Apple's revenue in 2006 was 19.3 billion dollars... Cisco's was 28.5 billion.

Just saying...

[DM @ Feb 22nd 2007 5:38AM]

Cisco fade into irrelevance??? Sorry, It won't. Here's a simple fact for the misinformed. Apple = rich , Cisco = richer. For more details, go google it.

[Kyle @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:46AM]

Now it is assured. Apple iPhone will continue to distort reality and rule the world. Steve Jobs is gonna be rich.

[johann lo @ Feb 22nd 2007 6:13AM]

I can't believe there's all these apple fanboys out there going 'w00t apple, tho the h-ck are Cisco', pretty funny.

To be fair, Cisco's patent does sound suspiciously like trying to cash in on Apple's 'i' brand (for want of a better word'), but Jobs is smart enough to know not to mess with the company that makes 95% (or something stupid) of the enterprise class networking gear out there. And they're taking larger and larger bites out of the exchange grade gear, Nortel/Ericsson/Lucent etc. are in a constant state of sh1tting bricks (and I say this after spending 3 years maintaining Ericsson and Lucent PABXs, wouldn't touch them with a stick if given the Cisco option in today's converged environment, one router to route them all and in the darkness, er, create another monopoly ;) )

Cisco has a virtual monopoly that M$ can only dream of, and to their credit, they actually have damned good (if damned overpriced) gear and they actually work with open standards (even if stuff like EIGRP, their proprietary SIP version and ISL come along with alarming regularity). Any bets as to what Apple's own network(s) runs on..... OK maybe at the beginning it was maybe more marketing than substance but nowadays, the industry standard IS cisco through and through. You'll be hard pressed to find anybody who's worked on Cisco gear who has anything but good things to say about them.

And you can be damned sure if Cisco did make some kind of 'iphone', it would work well and did exactly what it says on the tin. Even if it is also overpriced :)

Of course I may be just another post-novell era network tech who's known nothing but Cisco for their entire working life, but the sheer ignorance of the above 'apple will own cisco' comments just makes me want to die laughing

[Iceman @ Feb 22nd 2007 11:20AM]

On the contrary, Steve Jobs most certainly DID mess with Cisco. He wanted to use the iPhone name, never mind that Cisco owned the trademark. He got to use the iPhone name when a lot of trademark laywers were saying "no way Jose". And what exactly did he give up? My guess is, he opened the door to allowing the iPhone to be used as a VOIP phone with Cisco's software, which will no doubt irritate AT&T and please the rest of us. Looks like another Jobs victory to me.

[glacia @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:20PM]

"Cisco can now fade into irrelevance..."


You people are pure comedy. Do you know Cisco has twice the market cap of Apple? No you don't even know what market cap means. Cisco is the biggest dicks in their field which btw has nothing to do with phones.

Does anyone really believe Cisco cares even a little about this phone? It's a filler product for them. They probably make more money off of selling polo shirts with the Cisco logo. But for Apple their phone has to sell huge or they look stupid.

An analogy to put this comedy in perspective. It would be like Bed bath& Beyond desperately wanting to call their bathmats the same thing Toyota calls their car floormats. Why would Toyota care? They're not in the floormat business.

Toyota inhouse council would probably flip a coin to see if they should even write a C&D letter.

[Nabil @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:35PM]

Boooooooooaring

Where is the blood, the hate, the war of words, the accusations, the cunning lawyers, the millions in legal fees, the OJ-like trial?

I never thought it was gonna be as uneventful as it turned out to be.

[Matt @ Feb 22nd 2007 3:28PM]

Oh no!! This is going to be HORRIBLY confusing! How can I ever be sure which iPhone people are talking about?

Oh, that's right, people will only be talking about ONE of them... the other one's a sham product.

[joefy @ Feb 22nd 2007 6:01PM]

we are talking about this at http://www.cellphoner.net!

[sascoo @ Feb 23rd 2007 2:05AM]

ebay scandal here we come

[Jake @ Feb 23rd 2007 11:03PM]

Iphone will run your digital home. I knew wifi being in the device would be used more than just surfing the web.