Comments on: iPhone is ringing a lot of bells http://www.allenulbricht.com/2007/01/iphone-is-ringing-a-lot-of-bells/ Musings of an Entrepreneur Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:23:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David http://www.allenulbricht.com/2007/01/iphone-is-ringing-a-lot-of-bells/comment-page-1/#comment-20 David Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:57:16 +0000 http://massonga.com/allenulbricht/?p=15#comment-20 I make i jokes routinely. But, I find the "i" branding is quite different from the "e" one. "i" is still, well, cool. Even if in a geeky way. "e" is just lame. I make i jokes routinely. But, I find the “i” branding is quite different from the “e” one. “i” is still, well, cool. Even if in a geeky way. “e” is just lame.

]]> By: Mike http://www.allenulbricht.com/2007/01/iphone-is-ringing-a-lot-of-bells/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Mike Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:43:35 +0000 http://massonga.com/allenulbricht/?p=15#comment-3 The copyright suit is certainly an interesting issue. Cisco is right in fighting for the name they've owned, but who will it benefit in the long run? Here is an interesting post from a Cisco executive regarding the suit: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html There are also several good posts responding to it at the bottom. One one hand, Cisco has owned the name (both by themselves, and by the company the bought that had the name back in the mid 90s) for some time, and, despite negotiations, Apple blatantly went public with it. So, Cisco has every right to protect their property. Apple shouldn't feel and act like they are entitled to any type of branding that has the lower case i in front of it. However, on the other hand, the consumer base automatically associates any product with a lower case i to be an Apple product (thanks to strong marketing of the iMac and iPod). As is pointed out in the responses to the article I listed, this consumer assumption may not be worth the cost to Cisco to get the name back. Apple's phone would always be the "iPhone" and Cisco's the "other iPhone." Of course, given the fact that all things change, Apple may want to consider a different name altogether, as the typically younger market that is gobbling up the iAnythings is getting older and will eventually associate the i branding as being old. So, again, while I think Cisco is right in filing the lawsuit, I don't see much in the way of benefits (for Cisco or Apple) past upholding trademark law. The copyright suit is certainly an interesting issue. Cisco is right in fighting for the name they’ve owned, but who will it benefit in the long run?

Here is an interesting post from a Cisco executive regarding the suit:
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

There are also several good posts responding to it at the bottom.

One one hand, Cisco has owned the name (both by themselves, and by the company the bought that had the name back in the mid 90s) for some time, and, despite negotiations, Apple blatantly went public with it. So, Cisco has every right to protect their property. Apple shouldn’t feel and act like they are entitled to any type of branding that has the lower case i in front of it.

However, on the other hand, the consumer base automatically associates any product with a lower case i to be an Apple product (thanks to strong marketing of the iMac and iPod). As is pointed out in the responses to the article I listed, this consumer assumption may not be worth the cost to Cisco to get the name back. Apple’s phone would always be the “iPhone” and Cisco’s the “other iPhone.”

Of course, given the fact that all things change, Apple may want to consider a different name altogether, as the typically younger market that is gobbling up the iAnythings is getting older and will eventually associate the i branding as being old.

So, again, while I think Cisco is right in filing the lawsuit, I don’t see much in the way of benefits (for Cisco or Apple) past upholding trademark law.

]]>