Are you an Apple fan? Think again. Thank god I didn’t ‘switch’ or purchased any Apple products.
For me, with the iPhone announcement, Apple made it clear they don’t have any ethics. Because there is already an iPhone phone on the market by Cisco! (Because Cisco is big enough, they are now sueing Apple).
How dare any company, knowingly, announce a product in the same category when there’s already one with the same name? Totally unacceptable for me.
Can anyone defend this move? It’s not a simple trademark dispute, this is like knowingly killing a man without any respect for the laws, and shouting ‘bring on the trial’ assuming you’ll get away with it because you are powerful…
It seems Apple tried to negotiate with Cisco over the name before the announcement, it didn’t work out (at least it was not finalized), but Apple did this anyway. Here’s what Apple says:
"Apple’s the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone. And
if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we’re very confident we will
prevail."
I’m inclined to believe this is not true, because it’s so stupid. They are both Phones! Does this mean someone can use ‘iPhone’ name for ‘red cell phones’ or ‘dumb cell phones’ category? Come on…
Anything that begins with ‘i’ apparently belongs to Apple, Apple thinks. Does your name, your company name, domain name or product name begin with an ‘i’? You are not safe. The big bully may come and get it anytime – especially if it sounds cool. They’ll try to negotiate at first but if it fails, they’ll take it by force. I wonder how many of us can sue back…
iPhone issue may be settled between Apple and Cisco, but it won’t change what Apple has done… My code of ethics dictate that I shouldn’t help anyone without ethics earn money and power, so Apple is dead for me. I will never use an Apple product, even if somebody pays me for it, unless Apple publicly apologizes, accepts their wrong doings and promises not to bully anymore.
I’m quite surprised not seeing similar posts to this one. Do you think what Apple doing is acceptable? Can you still love Apple? Still think Apple is less evil than MS? If so, I feel sorry for you…
Loading ...
yeah, agree it was a bad move but don’t find it completely unethical for Apple to try and challenge the patent.
Certainly from their branding perspective it makes sense to try and get iPhone, the way how they’re doing it however is not very kosher.
When they announced Apple TV instead of iTV I expected the phone would be called Apple Phone similarly.
The huge hype surrounding an ‘iPhone’ for over a year now probably pushed them to do whatever it takes to get hold of that name for their final product.
Legal certainly didn’t do a good job to negotiate this in time for the keynote and this is about the worst publicity they could get.
something to consider:
1. Apple has iPhone worldwide, Cisco has it in the US only.
2. Cisco has had it since 99 but only two weeks ago released a (IMHO) VOIP phone under the name. Does anyone think in 2 years the Cisco iPhone will even be around? I don’t.
I do think Apple should have had a deal in place, and it sounded like the surprised Cisco too who thought they were going to agree to the latest terms, then didn’t
DO I hate Apple more than M$? no Apple doesn’t buy evangalists from other development communities to act within those communities as a spy and subversive.
If you ask me, what’s worse here is Cisco havinga trademark that they sat on for 8 years. YOu think 8 years ago they were thinking a VOIP phone would be great? Think it took 8 years to develop?
ROFL.
Corporations. Ethics.
ROFL.
iPhone? I still won’t use A PHONE because of what Alexander Graham Bell did.
Hi Peter,
, but I still would exclude small corps/shops…
> don’t find it completely unethical
I sincerely wonder which part of this you find ethical?
For every crime/unethical act, there’s a reasoning.
Apple tried to negotiate first… Maybe they thought if they used the name ‘Apple Phone’ they they’d lose some sales. Do these make their move more ethical?
Hi John,
> 1. Apple has iPhone worldwide, Cisco has it in the US only.
AFAIK, Apple has an announcement, Cisco has a product. Here in Turkey we have many Cisco/Linksys products in shops. We have VOIP phones from USRobotics, etc. and though I haven’t seen iPhone yet, I don’t see why it would be US only.
> Does anyone think in 2 years the Cisco iPhone will even be around? I don’t.
You may be right. But that doesn’t change the fact that the name belongs to Cisco.
Hi Brandon,
> Corporations. Ethics. ROFL.
You are probably right
Hi Eric,
> because of what Alexander Graham Bell did
I’m not aware of what he has done. In any case, your reasoning is false. Would you buy a product if you knew your money went to funding terrorists? Do I mean Apple does that? no. But with these kind of ethics and respect for law and others, I wouldn’t be surprised if I hear they do it.
Best regards,
Burak
John,
Cisco wasn’t sitting on the trademark for 8 years, it was a company that they bought out that owned the trademark.
I’m with you.. and was a bit shocked to see several blog posts that vilified Cisco for defending a trademark that they had the rights to. Must be some strong kool-aid they drink.
Now.. I also think this is a fine move on Cisco’s part.. they’re getting tons of free exposure for their product, and we all know in the end Apple will buy that name outright from them and Cisco will just change the name of their skype enabled wi-fi phone and pocket some $$.
>I don’t see why it would be US only.
Because Apple owns the worldwide trademark on “iPhone” So Cisco’s product won’t be leaving US shores.
Bob, Good point, I think I knew that too and had forgotten.
They are two separate phone types. So I would assume the legal argument from Apple is that the product is a mobile/cell phone and Cisco’s is a VOip phone. I agree the difference is small, but with several lawyers and engineers to a judge the gap between the two will be widened. Plus you are thinking of phone = phone. Apple is positioning it as a communications device, which includes email, voicemail, internet, whatever else the Apple Iphone includes plus it runs via an OS. Argueing these points that gap is now the Grand Canyon.
They are within the legal system like it or not. If its not a VOip phone then no issue.
If you want to attack someone attack all those losers who buy up all the domain names and then hold them for ransom. That ruling needs to be changed today!!! The internet isn’t a land grab.
The move by Cisco to release the phone with the name Iphone was, in my opinion, a strategic move on Cisco’s part to force the issue…knowing Apple was releasing their mobile phone soon.
This goes for both Apple, Cisco, and everyone else… Just like domain names, with the amount of products being released throughout the world we are going to run out of words…next products will contain numbers….oh wait thats already happening.
If products are different in any way then I say sorry your out of luck.
Just read an interesting article on this same topic. Makes a good point about the iTV, sorry, Apple TV….
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070111_001476.html
I get your point and its a valid point.
Seems to me everyone knew Apple was going to release an iPhone for a few years though, and although Cisco might own the name from some company that they bought out it was kind of silly of them to release a phone under this name, as we all know the ‘i’ branding for Apple and a lot of people could be fooled by the name (maybe that was an intention).
Lets face it anyone releasing a product named iWhatever, is trying to blag a few more sales as it’s a name that will make peoples ears prick up. Not because of the product itself, but because on the inovative products that Apple have been releasing to build the ‘i’ branding.
The Cisco phone got a lot more publicity because it was called iPhone.
Not using Apple because of this. Your loss I think.
First let me second Brandon
ROFL.
Corporations. Ethics.
ROFL.
Second Relax, it will all work out getting your panties in a teist over this is…well you fill in the description…
I see this a little differently but admittedly I am a mac user. They were in negotiations when they made the announcement and both sides thought that was going to work out. The problem with Cisco prosecuting Apple over the iPhone use is that they have not gone after the other dozen or so companies using that to name products.
The reason for that being they compete in different markets. And the iPhone VoiP is and entirely different market than the iPhone cell phone.
Now I still wont be getting one, but that is for all the reasons I blog about. No 3rd party software, cingular contracts required. All that junk
hmm.. Jason didn’t rtfa.. “I’d envision that Cisco would be inclined to add cellular functionality to its iPhone…”
and if they have plans to bring their product into the space that Apple is entering then the trademark applies.
f*ck apple and all their blind zealot fanboys that can’t see thru their bs.
See how they f*cked over somebody else who stood in the way of them
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/06/apple_itunescouk_domain_dispute/
You are right, Cisco owns the name “iPhone” for some years now, but don’t you think is shady to launch a product with this name just 2 weeks before Apple announces their own?(After both companies where negotiating the name, and I really don’t think this negotiations took place just after the Cisco launch).
Apple may be wrong to try to take the name in this way, but Cisco isn’t any better.
“I still won’t use A PHONE because of what Alexander Graham Bell did.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! That’s too funny.
Apple isn’t selling an iPhone, they’ve announced an intended product. I’m sure they will clear any legal issues before selling it, and that MIGHT mean Cisco gets their payoff from Apple for patenting a phone that no one is every going to buy, and wasn’t ever intented to be a real phone on the market. Clever move Cisco! – ]
The trademark is one thing but Apple is also the biggest proponent for DRM. While others in the industry are abandoning it apple is pushing for it. It is the only thing now that holds itunes together and gives them competitive advantage. DRM = apples eggs in one basket.
iPhone is very limited, albeit very cool looking. I will pass on it and wait for v2 or 3.
Apple does things very well, but it isn’t an inventor of new things (now). Just makes em much easier to use and sexy to look at.
John,
> Because Apple owns the worldwide trademark on “iPhone”
Sorry about misreading your initial point.
If Apple is right, then it means Cisco can ship those real iPhones anywhere. IMHO Apple didn’t respect Cisco’s intellectual rights (in the US), I wonder how they will expect others respect theirs worldwide.
Hi Tink,
> Not using Apple because of this. Your loss I think.
Yes, my loss, I don’t deny Apple products look cool. But this is above and beyond simple losses for me. Losing the respect for myself will be a much bigger loss…
Hi Siemon,
I agree with your reasons too. I didn’t get an iPod mainly because there was no UI for changing the battery:)
All phone types are slowly merging into one.
Both iPhones are phones!
Hi Freddy,
> Apple may be wrong to try to take the name in this way, but Cisco isn’t any better.
Cisco, being a big corp, may not be any better, I don’t know. But I know that in this matter, they owned the name, released a product under that name, before an agreement was reached and signed. Maybe Cisco saw what’s coming, maybe they just wanted to make their hands stronger. You may say Cisco played rough, but I don’t find it unethical, does not compare to what Apple did.
Hi Lee,
> Clever move Cisco!
You may be right. That doesn’t change the way Apple acted.
Best regards,
Burak
rofl, Trademark infringement is nothing like murder.
In fact, Cisco doesn’t seem to hate Apple for it; they are still trying to negotiate with Apple for a more open Apple ‘iPhone’ (or what ever it’s finally named). This is what corporations do. It’s a game of positioning and financial haggling. But it’s still funny to read the op and some of the responses.
ZOMG, Apple named a competing product the same as Cisco’s product. It’s a social crisis and a moral injustice. Send money to my paypal to fund the crusade.
Read what Cisco says:
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
via:
“Mark Chandler, Cisco’s SVP and General Counsel, speaks in the first person with a matter-of-fact tone of voice, and it’s enough to overcome the skepticism of even the most diehard fanboy.”
http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/news/2007/01/cisco_how_to_do.html
I made the switch a few months ago and just love my macbook. This trademark issue probably won’t deter me in purchasing other Apple products I may want in the future so I guess I still do like Apple. But it is very disappointing that they did this and are acting so arrogantly about it. It was bad enough when they attacked numerous podcasters and other companies with products that had “pod” in their names just a months ago. Anyways, clearly they infringed on the trademark and we can only hope the lawsuit goes in favor of Cisco, which it should given Cisco is no small company. Otherwise maybe Apple becomes like the OJ of the corporate world.
Oh this is too good! I can only remember one other time in the past 5 years that I’ve gotten into an ethics debate on a Flash-related blog. It was this blog, in fact.
http://www.asvguy.com/2004/01/the_swf_flash_d.html#comments
As for the ethics of this situation, I don’t disagree that it’s unethical. But when it comes to business and ethics, I usually think of actions that companies take with are technically legal, or that are illegal but they get away with. This seems to clearly be a simple, probably illegal situation. Nobody is playing any hidden tricks here. Nobody is trying to bury the little guy. And certainly nobody killed anybody.
Besides, what’s our alternative? Jump the shiny pure ethics of Microsoft?
If your conscientious enough to stop buying/supporting products because their parent corporation did something “unethical” you would probably be considered homeless. Reading the comments here pretty much sums up which side of the fence they were on BEFORE the IPhone flap. The good news is it is totally your choice to buy/boycott. Now go change the world with your rhetoric.
lol thats just stupid.
Not to mention that the company that cisco bought the iphone from probably named it that to get the “i” name exposure that apple has created.
If apples lawyers felt that cisco was asking to much for really nothing and trying to capitalize on it and if they felt they could win in court why would they pay?
Obviously you use windows and let me remind you that m$ stole (oops i mean borrowed) that from apple.
So how do you feel about windows basically cloning osx? or naming thing similiar? like gadgets.. if you want to talk about a bad rip off company then you better look at m$, cause god knows they havent actually invented anything useful themselfs.. ever..
Whether you like the iphone or not it just raised the bar for every upcoming cell phone and you should be greatfull for that.
I don’t see an “ethics” issue here–it’s all business and it WILL be resolved legally or with some buyout. I might feel differently if it was a little company they were clobbering–like I heard some dude had trademarked “big blue” or something and IBM got rights to it because they had more at stake–I forget the details though.
As for boycotting… that’d be fine if you could find an alternative that wasn’t equivalent. Are you saying MS always plays fair?
Finally, regarding Burak’s own loss for passing on Apple… what I don’t get is why mac folks are so INTO their dang computers. The crowd reaction at that Apple keynote was more sickening than a couple getting overly gushy with each other in public. I mean, Jobs needs only to touch a turd to make it gold. For example, when he showed how you unlock the phone (by sliding a finger) the crowd went wild. (I should say, that I do think many Apple products are great.) But, as far as switching… I’ve been most tempted to switch back having seen the macbook pro(well, I used to maintain both platforms) but even still, I think there’s a price to pay (sure, you could give me a total cost of ownership argument)… but my MAIN point is that it’s just a computer! Why get so emotionally attached? Plus, why do the mac folks think their on a crusade? If the Mac was 90% of the market would they be the same way or would they switch to something else just because they always root for the underdog? I really don’t get it. I mean, I am fine with someone saying they prefer one platform but when they get all high and mighty about it I really question it.
Hi Jed,
They are both unethical, they are both crimes. If you are knowingly doing one of them, you can do the other, what’s to stop you?
> Nobody is playing any hidden tricks here. Nobody is trying to bury the little guy.
I’m very glad this has happened and I was able to see the real, ugly face of Apple. Think, if they are doing this to Cisco, what will they do to the little guy?
Hi Lyon,
> Trademark infringement is nothing like murder.
I’l agree that they are not as similar as Cisco iPhone and Apple iPhone
Hi Steve,
> The good news is it is totally your choice to buy/boycott. Now go change the world with your rhetoric.
Yes, it’s everyones own choice and if you were wondering I do have a black list of ‘bad’ companies.
Hi Dave,
> Not to mention that the company that cisco bought the iphone from probably named it that to get the “i” name exposure that apple has created.
Nope. They got the name in 1996 before Apple started their ‘i’-line.
> Obviously you use windows and let me remind you that m$ stole (oops i mean borrowed) that from apple.
I’m not defending MS and I’m trying to switch to Linux. AFAIK, Apple also ‘borrowed’ from earlier work. I’ll not dive into this debate.
My point is, Apple did something terrible, unacceptable for me, at the CEO level. As a matter of fact, I like the look of the Apple iPhone, I think Macs are cool, but Apple is not…
Hi Phillip,
Nice to have you here.
> it’s all business and it WILL be
resolved legally or with some buyout.
Exactly, but I still think there’s an ethics issue. Companies should play by the rules. How dare Apple claims, knowingly, a name that belongs to someone else? This is not business, this is crossing the line and ignoring the rules.
What if this happened to you, to any of us? Yes, Cisco is a big company but I don’t think this is relevant about the ethics of what Apple has done.
> Are you saying MS always plays fair?
No. That’s why I’m looking into Linux distros.
> Why get so emotionally attached?
People do… I know, I do… Maybe silly but still a fact of life…
Best regards,
Burak
I don’t see this as an ethical issue. Apple and cisco agree to disagree and have decided to roll the dice in court. Which is what the courts are there for. I don’t see this at all like “killing a man”. I think many soldiers out there would agree that that is one of the worst ewxperiences a person can have and you just compared it to lawyers and judges talking about a logo and name. Might want to step back and cool your jets on the whole thing. BTW which set of ethics are you following? In the end it’s all subjective. If apple feels there is prior art or cisco failed to defend the trademark previously then isn’t cisco the unethical one by trying to get money from apple? Since from a legal standpoint they would not be able to enforce it.
Hi Ethan,
Yes, ethics are subjective, that’s why I also mentioned laws but you may also disagree with the laws, so ethics are more important, to me at least… Some things are not always illegal, but unethical to most.
(1) Cisco has a phone, branded as iPhone.
(2) Apple knows this. Even tries to negotiate.
(3) Apple announces its own iPhone phone.
In my book, this is 100% unethical without any doubt. I guess you find it ethical, if so I can’t argue.
> If apple feels there is prior art or cisco failed to defend the trademark previously
Apple says two phones are different type of phones so it’s OK. Probably their lawyers will use other arguments in court as this one sounds plain stupid.
Best regards,
Burak
Business ethics cries from Cisco? Wow. I wonder if folks who don’t own any Apple products spend as much time, effort and money maintaining their non-Apple stuff as they do bashing the Apple stuff, ethics or not.
That being said, it makes no sense comparing Apple’s unethical behavior with any other company’s unethical behavior. Each company’s lack of ethics is its own responsibility. I can’t rip you off, get caught, then go before the judge and wave a newspaper article showing how some other guy ripped someone else off and say: “See, happens all the time, you gotta let me off the hook..” Same way we can’t hurt someone and say: “Since I didn’t know it was wrong, I’m not guilty.”
I had a point, but the caffeine wore off, and it evaporated.. So sue me.
Cisco lost rights to iPhone trademark last year, experts say
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
That’s hilarious! But the apple critics can’t abandon their crusade. This just means that Cisco’s lawsuit is also unethical. Burn em both!!!
As far as I see it it’s just big business against big business. Maybe apple haven’t been fair but really what’s the big deal to anyone personally? Something that concerns me far more than squabbles between fat corporates is exposing children in China and India to dangerous chemicals that are a by product from apple products – http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/13/cisco-might-have-lost-iphone-trademark-in-06/
Apple looks to me like evil mofos ma
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/
It’s just a name! Fact is Apple have made a killer phone – i just hope it damn well works!!! I bought me a SEP990 and it goddamd sucks big time. SLOW as hell – crashes – phone goes off in your pocket all sorts. My missus got the walkman version and thats crap as well. Both of them suck when it comes to connecting to a machine and means that we both only use about 3/10th of the phones potential functions.
What about the fact that the iwhatever concept is Apple’s in the first place. The idea that cisco even “owned” it in the first place could be construed as unethical, like they were trying to “beat apple” to the punch and use their naming scheme to somehow steal there “concept”. Apple’s to orange’s (forgive the pun), iphone from cisco is a voip phone, which means it is not a CELL phone, and is merely a phone, with no workgroup/desktop type apps (e-mail, calendar, games, etc.), big difference here. In the end it’s just a name not a whole platform or idea.