Today's announcement from Cisco regarding our suit with Apple over
our iPhone trademark has spurred a lot of interesting questions. Most
importantly, this is not a suit against Apple's innovation, their
modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or
royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement.

Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a
company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that
combined web access and telephone. Infogear's registrations for the
mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in
Apple's eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for
years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last
spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they
approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have
approached us several times over the past year.

For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple
over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone
trademark. We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach
an agreement and Apple's communications with us suggested they
supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention
to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the
iPhone brand.

So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and
announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching
an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of "we're too
busy." Despite being very close to an agreement, we had substantive
communications from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their
launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at
the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a
royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products
or services? No.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could
interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis
to make this happen-it provides the foundation of innovation that
allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want.
Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating
collaboration with Apple. And 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.
That's it. Openness and clarity.

At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone
technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the
tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly
infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a
product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it
used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer -
Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that
needs to be a two-way street.

This lawsuit is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in
the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action
we have taken today is about not using people's property without
permission.

It's surprising to me that Cisco was manufacturing iPhones from the
time of its purchase of InfoGear until last month.

I searched Froogle for Cisco iPhones and found 2 models.  Both were
released in December 2006.

The following support webpage for the iPhone was published on Sept 12
2000.  http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/smbiz/iphone/

Linksys says the following in its Dec 18 release of the new iPhones:
"Since the summer of 2004, Linksys has shipped more than 3 million VoIP
products worldwide, including seven phones in its iPhone product line -
all immediately available in the United States:"

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_News_C2&childpagename=US...

This news article from BetaNews the same day makes mention of the
acquisition of the trademark in 2000, but seems to indicate that Dec
2006 was the first Linksys use of the moniker "iPhone" for its VOIP
products: "Now, a "second re-introduction" has re-christened the CIT200
as the "iPhone Cordless Internet Telephony Kit," and the WIP300 as the
"iPhone Wireless-G IP Phone."
http://www.betanews.com/article/Linksys_iPhone_Announcement_Gets_Atte...

Besides, the USPTO has no mark "iPhone" for InfoGear.  It has
"IPHONENETWORKS."  Big enough difference?  Check it out for yourself:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=75501345

Furthermore, the USPTO lists the marks current status as "Abandoned: No
Statement of Use filed after Notice of Allowance was issued." as of
11-17-2000:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75501345

So let's see, InfoGear files for and receives protection for
IPHONENETWORKS.  By Sep 2000, they have been bought by Cisco.  Two
months later the USPTO lists the mark as "abandoned."  In December
2006, Linksys releases an iPhone and claims that it is a continuation
of if 2 year old VOIP phone line.  But there is no record of iPhone
products prior to Dec 2006.

Yesterday happens.  Today happens.  What's tomorrow?

This didn't take but a few minutes of research.  The internet's a
wonderful thing.....

BTW, I know nothing about trademark laws and what all of the terms on
the USPTO site mean :)  Just a googler...

Cisco? Security men on blue slowing down the traffic for older folks to
hop in ... watch AAPL speed pass the 100 miles/hr mark

Here how this mean - show me your technolgy - we don't want to copy you
we just want to make sure that you don't copy us (Cisco)...that what
Cisco want behind the screen..

Read this...
"Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating
collaboration with Apple".