If you’ve watched the news or looked at the Internet at any time in the past week, you can’t have failed to notice the pant-wetting iPod-soiling excitement of the Apple fanboys at the launch of the iPhone, a product which is apparently going to change *everything*. And nor can you have missed reports that Cisco owns the trademark on the word iPhone so has filed a lawsuit against Apple. So why did Apple, which knew Cisco had the iPhone trademark, not change the name of its product? I Cringely has a theory…
“Cisco’s trademark infringement lawsuit, as well as its recent introduction of new iPhone models, shows the company has no intention of giving up the iPhone trademark to Apple. And since Cisco has a prior claim, just as many lawyers, and more money than Apple, one can only guess that Cisco will prevail. So why did Apple start this fight in the first place? Publicity.”
Interesting thought, but why would anyone want to get sued just for the publicity?
And before we go, it behoves me to call Apple on its chutzpah. Read the iPhone Web site and you could be forgiven that its launch is akin to the Second Coming:
“It ushers in an era of software power and sophistication never before seen in a mobile device, completely redefining what you can do on a mobile phone.”
Wait! I know you recognise marketing puff when you see it, but read that again because this really is priceless:
“completely redefining what you can do on a mobile phone.”
*Completely* redefining in as much as I can’t make phone calls or send text messages on it? Well, by some reports, partly:
“The lack of a keypad makes it harder than a regular phone to dial, and SMS will be awkward to use. That’s a substantial barrier in the US, and an even greater drawback for a phone in Europe and Asia…” said Michael Mace from Mobile Opportunity.
Engadget had some iPhone moans too.
Here endeth my biased look at the iPhone. Maybe I’m just sore because I have to put up with a shitty Nokia SPV M500. And because Apple has been beating us up. But one thing I’ve learnt is that having a phone that’s easy to make phone calls and send text messages on is miles more important than being able to “glide through albums with Cover Flow” whatever the fuck that is.
And anyway, I had to be partial to make up for all the fanboys. Took me ages to clean up after they left.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I would suggest that Apple feel they have strong enough intellectual property rights over the “i” prefix on electronic goods to fight and win this case. Steve Jobs described Ciscos hold on the name as tenuous at best. I would ask the question: bearing in mind that the iMac and the iPod, iTunes and iTeeth have been around since Old Testament times, why would Cisco name a product iPhone and then not promote it? Do you know anyone with an iPhone as made by Cisco? I don’t. I’d say this is more of a cynical move on Ciscos part rather than one by Apple as I Cringly proposes.
Interesting, interesting.
In our dealings with trademark lawyers, we’ve been told that sticking an ‘i’ in front of a word is not enough to make the resulting phrase non-generic.
And Cisco filed for its iPhone mark in 1996, so it can’t be accused of piggybacking on Apple’s success.
Just because nobody has a Cisco iPhone doesn’t make their mark any less valid.
I’m sure even Apple owns trademarks for which it doesn’t have a product that lots of people have heard of…