Reply With Quote
plenty of phones do that already, and this one can sync with windows for contacts anyway.
I thought it is pretty cool that it has an accelerometer in it that "senses" when you change to a landscape view and changes the screen accordingly.
plenty of phones do that already, and this one can sync with windows for contacts anyway.
I like the Time Travel feature.
so unfortnate its only for that piece of cingular (soon to be at&t)
I would buy it tomorrow, if it wasnt a Cingular phone
why cant Verizon carry good phones like that one or the Treo 750.
Verizons coverage
Customer Service
overall satisfaction for the last 9 years
the phone selection and technology
who has the blackberry 8500g for tmobile? ill trade you the sk3 for that ......
Cisco sues Apple over iPhone name
January 10, 2007 2:59 PM PST
Cisco Systems has filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringing its iPhone trademark, the networking company said Wednesday. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Cisco said.
Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in the year 2000 after it acquired a company called Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years. Infogear's original filing for the trademark dates back to March 20, 1996. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early last year. Last month, Linksys expanded the iPhone family with additional products.
Apple announced Tuesday at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco its new iPhone, an iPod-like cellular phone that works on the Cingular Wireless network.
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel at Cisco, said in a statement. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission."
Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco's iPhone trademark, the company said.
Posted by Marguerite Reardon
http://news.com.com/2061-10806_3-614...?tag=cnetfd.mt
...cingular doesn't work in Montana.
edit: though i wouldn't want it anyway.
Last edited by johngateswhiteley; 01-10-2007 at 07:18 PM.
Cingular is fine with me.
Supposedly it doesn't come out till June. That gives me enough time to save some spare change to get one.
Pretty stupid for Apple to come out with a phone using a registered trademark that Cisco had made a point of publicly re-using a couple of months ago. All they have done now is put themselves into a corner negotiating for the rights to use the name.
Never use Zack Morris and pussy in the same sentence again.
So, is everyone just overlooking the fact that you've got a touchscreen for your viewing screen for everything? o finger prints, sweat, oil, etc.
Gonna be fun watching Cisco own Apple on this one.
I would like the new phone, but you have a point. In my field, I might get blood, soot and Lord knows what else on the phone. Perhaps they have a protective sleeve ....hmmmm
My current phone has a touch screen and I hate when I get make up on it. But you can use the stylus instead of your fingers so you won't get the prints. Don't know if this phone will have one but it could be useful.
they'll pay to use the name and it'll be forgotten.
That's what I'm thinking, too.
Also, it's worthless to me unless the PDA aspects and synching to desktops are equivalent to the Treos.
It's Apple, so it will ALWAYS be overpriced.
Still worth keeping an eye on.
Look and feel, baby.
(Or am I the only one old enough to remember that?)
Speaking of Treos, I just bought two software apps that are very nice.
1. DialByPhoto. It is what it says, but it looks great and functions better than Treo's standard Phone program.
2. CallRec. Two weeks ago, I bought a cell phone recording device from Radio Shack and hooked it up to my digital recorder with an adapter, so essentially, a crapload of wires hanging from my ear. Well, this program records phone conversations on your SD card. On my 1GB card, I have about 400MB of free space and at the highest quality of recording, I can get a little over 3 hours. This is great since it's my only phone and I don't like doing phone interviews with a bunch of people around.
I'm sure it will suck ass at all PDA/Smart Phone functions but be great at entertainment options. I wonder if they will break down as often as iPods.
http://www.austin360.com/blogs/conte..._some_sob.html
No user-replaceable battery: I don’t like this much, either. iPod batteries go soft over time with repeated use and you can expect this phone’s battery to wear down in a year or more, too. Not having an easily replaceable/swappable battery is annoying, but not surprising given that hasn’t happened with the iPod. What’ll be really annoying is sending in your iPhone to get the battery replaced. Being without your iPod for a few days or weeks is annoying, but doing it for an iPhone is going to be disastrous for people who don’t have an Apple store nearby. I wonder if they’ll train employees at Cingular stores to be able to handle that.
Looks good enough to expense.
Cisco on brink of losing iPhone name in Europe
Legal loophole
By OUT-LAW.com → More by this author
Published Friday 12th January 2007 17:13 GMT
Cisco could be on the brink of losing the rights to the iPhone trade mark in Europe, according to trade mark experts. Apple could end up with European rights to iPhone, in contrast to reports around the world suggesting that Cisco's rights were absolute.
Cisco this week sued Apple over its use of the iPhone name for its new mobile telephone. Cisco holds US and European trade marks in the name and negotiations over a licensing deal between the companies had broken down, Cisco said.
Trade mark specialist Lee Curtis of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, has found a legal loophole, though, which could strip Cisco of its European rights. He told technology law podcast OUT-LAW Radio that in Europe a person can lodge a revocation application against a trade mark registration if the trade mark has not been used for the past five years. Just such a revocation was lodged by a German law firm, CMS, on exactly the same day, 18th December 2006, on which Cisco launched the iPhone.
OUT-LAW can find no use in Europe of the iPhone trade mark in the five years preceding that revocation application, which means Cisco's ownership of the trade mark is under threat in Europe. Though there are references in US media to Linksys products dating from 2005 using the iPhone name, this is unlikely to count as use in Europe unless there were sales into the EU or Linksys, a subsidiary of Cisco, undertook advertising and promotional activity in the EU.
If CMS filed its revocation application before Cisco launched its product, meaning earlier that day, then Cisco will lose the trade mark rights.
Apple has the oldest application for the mark so would almost certainly then own the trade mark in Europe.
But even if it is found that Cisco launched its product earlier on 18th December than CMS launched its revocation application it could still lose the rights. In that case a special rule comes into play which is designed to stop companies launching products simply to protect their trade marks.
"Under the European Trade Mark Directive any use made in the three month period before the application for revocation is disregarded, unless there were actual plans for resumption of use before the trade mark owner became aware that an application for revocation might be filed," said Curtis.
This complicated rule is designed to stop companies rushing out a product quickly once they hear that someone is about to file a revocation application on their trade mark. It creates a three month window preceding the revocation application in which any use of the trade mark is not allowed to justify the continued holding of the mark.
The only way in which Cisco could use its 18th December product to hold on to the trade mark is if it could prove that it had launch plans which predated its learning that a revocation application was being filed. That is a complicated issue which a European court is likely to decide.
"The crucial question is when did Cisco become aware that they might be planning to revoke," said Curtis.
The news could fundamentally change the negotiations between two of the world's biggest technology companies. Curtis said that Apple had paid The Beatles' record label tens of millions of pounds in a settlement over the Apple name. "That was tens of millions of pounds. This could be more," he said.
But the potential weaknesses in Cisco's European situation could change that completely. A mutual licensing agreement between the companies could end up taking the place of a multi-million pound payment.
There are barriers in Apple's way, though. Observers are assuming that CMS is acting on behalf of Apple, and if that revocation is successful then Apple is the next in line to register the trade mark. But three European companies have filed objections to Apple's 2002 registration application. The details of those objections are not available, but they could either derail Apple's application or limit the rights that it wins through its registration.
Cisco's ownership of the iPhone trade mark stems from its purchase of a phone equipment maker seven years ago. "Cisco purchased Infogear in 2000 and Infogear were the proprietors of a US trade mark registration for iPhone dating from 1996 for various computer software relating to telephones," said Curtis. "In the European Union Cisco systems also own a community trademark registration for iPhone as well dating slightly later."
Cisco has said that it was negotiating with Apple over the use of the iPhone name up to as late as Monday night. Apple chief executive Steve Jobs then announced the name of his company's new mobile telephone as iPhone on Tuesday without a deal being in place.
An Apple spokeswoman was quoted in the US press as saying that the company would mount a case based on the fact that its product is different to Cisco's because it was a mobile phone and Cisco's was a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) phone.
Curtis said that that argument was unlikely to convince a court. "The basic scenario is you have to look at the nature of the product, the use they are put to and the trade channels through which they are sold to deem whether they are similar or not," he said. "I think it's not a particularly tenable argument to put forward that the products are not similar, they're [both] telephone products." ®
iPod batteries aren't manually replaced, Apple has a whole unit replacement policy for iPods. But it will be interesting to see how it's handled.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
