fmeyer wrote:Esse negocio de registrar um nome sem existir alguma coisa material ou tangível, fede.

Cisco wrote:
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 no substantive communication 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.

fmeyer wrote:Esse negocio de registrar um nome sem existir alguma coisa material ou tangível, fede.

bobmoe wrote:Hi!

fmeyer wrote:Esse negocio de registrar um nome sem existir alguma coisa material ou tangível, fede.

A idéia é o mais importante! Analisando pela sua importancia (e valor) na sociedade, é o primeiro item que deve ser protegido.

t+

fmeyer wrote:
eu tenho uma ideia, nao falo pra ninguem, patenteio, alguem vem e tem a mesma ideia e produz algo ... quem tem mais direito sobre o produto ?

simplesmente pq se trata de uma idéia NOVA, e aí está o coringa: inovação (estar a frente).
O precursor deve ser protegido, mas na prática, ganha quem registra primeiro e não quem criou.

thingol wrote:
Segundo a Cisco, eles haviam registrado o nome em 1996, o iMac ainda nem existia, e desde 2001 a Cisco e a Apple estavam (amigavelmente a princípio) vendo se dava para compartilhar o tal nome.

Só que no dia do lançamento do iPhone eles foram surpreendidos com a tal notícia, e aí resolveram processar a Apple.

fmeyer wrote:o Iphone feio em questao da cisco

parece aquele motorola c333 ...

Paulo Roberto Schiavon wrote:Esse aparelho é ruim de mais!!!!

Paulo Roberto Schiavon wrote:A Cisco deveria ter vergonha na cara e deixar a Apple usar o nome sem maiores complicações.

Paulo Roberto Schiavon wrote:
A Cisco deveria ter vergonha na cara e deixar a Apple usar o nome sem maiores complicações.