iPhone: does Cisco miss out due to prior art?

Filed under: Apple


digg_url = 'http://digg.com/apple/iPhone_does_Cisco_miss_out_due_to_prior_art';
Apple's argument that Cisco's claim to the name iPhone is "silly" is about to get a whole lot more cogent. It's still debatable whether Cisco has rights to the name, but eagle-eyed reader mrsalty points out the fact that Cisco's patent filings for the "Internet telephone" (and at least two others) reference the iphone name and attribute it to the Cidco (a company now owned by Earthlink) is not encouraging; the fact that the filing reads with the following language is even less so. "Also known [to Cisco at the time of filing the patent] is a dedicated 'Web phone,' such as the iphone, manufactured by Cidco..." Yikes. It's difficult to tell whether this iphone predates Cisco's acquisition of the patent holdings originally filed by Infogear in 1997, but prior art is prior art, and they admitted as much right in their own patent filing. What's more, the The Internet Phone Company has owned and operated iphone.com since 1995, and we don't see Cisco suing them. So basically we really hope this whole thing will be quick and painless since we don't think anyone wants another RIM vs NTP saga on their hands, but things will get very interesting if it works out such that the iPhone name is released to the commons and everyone and their mother can make an iPhone. (Sony Ericsson aiPhone or Motorola IFON, anyone?) Our advice to the people Behind the Human Network: focus on that human network of yours and let the iPhone go, kid.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
BOLD MOVES: THE FUTURE OF FORD Step behind the curtain at Ford Motor. Experience the documentary first-hand.



Link To Original Article