Cisco and Apple revealed this week that they have reached a type of cease fire in their trademark battle over the term iPhone, which Cisco owns.

Cisco launched a product called the iPhone in December and wants to come to terms with Apple on an agreement that would allow the Cisco iPhone to ‘ interoperate ‘ with the Apple iPhone in some form or fashion. Apparently the companies continued negotiations on the topic right up until the night before MacWorld at which point Apple walked out on the talks, launched their iPhone at MacWorld hoping that Cisco was bluffing only to learn that Cisco wasn’t bluffing when they filed a lawsuit against Apple.

Now they are back at the tables trying to work things out. Many companies would jump at a chance to avoid a Trademark lawsuit, but Apple is not a company to be troubled by someone else’s trademark. Plus, they are not normally known for opening up their proprietary systems to allow interoperability with other platforms.

Therefore, they may be talking but they may have a long way to go before a settlement is presented. Even then it looks likely that both companies will exact a pound of iPhone flesh from the other.

Technorati tags: Cisco, Apple, iPhone, Trademark litigation, ineroperable iPhones, proprietary systems

This week I attended the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada otherwise known as CES 2007.  By most accounts the show was a success.  The show has grown to cover the entire Las Vegas Nevada convention center, spread to the Hilton and this year spread to include most of the Sands Convention Center as well.

This year CES saw 2,700 exhibitors showing their goods, services and hot new products to a record number of 140,000 attendees visiting the show.

However, the hottest new product of the convention proved to be no show as it was on display in MacWorld in San Francisco under the heatedly contested name of iPhone.  Apple unveiled the iPhone at MacWorld and largely stole some of the thunder from CES, not to mention embroiling Apple in a trademark dispute over a name they do not own.

Cisco does own the trademark and had released a product called the iPhone just a few days before both shows.  (Read more about the iPhone from Linksys a subsidiary of Cisco under The iPhone iBluff from Apple.)

Despite the absence of Apple’s iPhone from CES there were many noteworthy products and services that we have gathered information on and will initiate coverage on here at Maven Mapper’s Information.  History in the consumer electronics field has shown that the hottest products are not the only product.  We will labor to provide you with some of the other products that could make an even larger contribution to your life than another cell phone might or might not provide.

The Beatles will appeal to a higher court regarding their recent loss to Apple Computer. There are two reasons for the appeal. 1. The Beatles’s Apple Corps has gone this far and still has a chance to convince a higher court that this decision misses the mark. A successful appeal could bring millions in damages. 2. The appeal has already successfully delayed Apple Corps requirement to pay Apple Computer’s legal bills for the first case.

Or to sum up the tactics, The Beatles are using offense as a defense.
“Apple Computer’s request for its costs to be paid now was denied pending the outcome of the appeal. ‘The stakes are still high,’ said Curtis. ‘If Apple Computer loses this war of words at appeal, it is likely that Apple Corps would obtain significant damages for past iTunes use, plus the legal tab.’” from Beatles’ label to appeal iTunes verdict

This battle has not helped The Beatles reputation with the Mac Generation. Mac Loyalists are stepping out in full fource to decry the 60’s era group and their company. The backlash is reminiscent of Metallica’s push to stop illegal downloads of their own music several years ago.

Sometimes bands, which are a form of business, turn off fans as they are forced to protect their corporate property. However, when you have billionaires on either side of a battle whether its in the music industry, oil industry, or drug industry, public perception is usually not a significant concern, principles get inflated as the harbingers of the estates focus on protecting the principle assets of the estate for generations to come.

I suspect The Beatles may have faired better in this endeavor if they had avoided the courts and fought off the attack on their trademark in the medium they knew best, public protest and music. This was not possible as The Beatles were did not operate as a united front after the band broke up and after the deaths of 2 of the its members.

The truth of the situation is that the world is getting very crowded with people and running out of trademarkable options. This is present everywhere from trademark to corporate brands to internet domains. The current laws both domestic and world wide are not keeping up with a growing world wide population of people and companies.

The full judgement in the case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer is available to be read in full below. Apple Computer bested Apple Corps in a UK court this morning. Apple Corps will have to pay legal bills for Apple computer which total about $2m.

Apple Corps, owned by The Beatles, is known for its willingness to wage corporate war, and is planning to appeal the decision.

So we can expect to see more of this fight between these two groups of billionairs in the not too distant future.

Apple Corps v Apple Computer: judgment in full – Law – Times Online: “Apple Corps v Apple Computer: judgment in full

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 996 (Ch)
Case No: HC03C02428″

It will likely be the end of the month, before we find out which Apple will rule the world! The Beatles, Apple Corps or Apple Computer, which according to testimony provided by The Beatles road manager this week, received its name when Steve Jobs allegedyl took the name off of a Beatles record. I guess Sgt. Pepper’s lonely Heart’s Club Computer Company just didn’t have the same ring. Meanwhile, there have been no reports that a Yellow waterproof Ipod shaped like an oval will actually be coined a Subpod.

InformationWeek Online Music Apple Pushes Into New Music Area While Fighting Beatles April 6, 2006:

“U.K. High Court Justice Edward Mann said he is unlikely to decide the case before Easter but is likely to issue a decision by the end of April.”

The trial has started and this promises to be an interesting battle. The Independent (below) indicates that Steve Jobs had offered to purchase the name “Apple Corps” from The Beatles before the introduction of the Itunes store. The offer was refused, and Apple Computer later decided it was cheaper to fight it out in court rather than settle.

Independent Online Edition > Legal: “One analyst has estimated that Apple Computer would have to pay 60m pounds to settle the case.”

Compare this to the $1b in revenue that Apple Computer has earned from Itunes and Steve Jobs might have wished that he’d settled before this is all over. Afterall, Itunes would never have launched without the Apple brand name behind it, as so many failed MP3 offerings that came before and after can prove.

To put this in perspective, do you think McDonalds would litigate against a company that used the golden arches with a bite taken out of it as a logo for a Steak Burger joint? Do you think McDonalds would win? Well that’s basically what Apple Computer is up against.

At the end of the day, Steve Jobs may have some difficulty getting the apple peel out from between his teeth. . .

As a follow up to a previous post, “Apple versus Apple: Direct Comparison” regarding the face off between Apple Computer and The Beatles, it would appear that Apple computer is in a poor position according to sources quoted in Information Week below.

InformationWeek Apple iTunes Beatles Say ‘Apple’ Is Forbidden Fruit March 29, 2006: “Thomas Speiss, of Baker & Hostetler in Los Angeles, said that three of the most important factors in deciding intellectual property rights appear to be in the music company’s favor. The factors likely to weigh most heavily in determining whether Steve Jobs’ company has infringed on the Apple music company’s name, logo and territory are: the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of goods and services and the similarity of marketing channels.

‘It’s a slam dunk for the Beatles,’ Speiss said during an interview Wednesday. ‘”