The iPhone Lawsuits

by Aaron Wright Feb 20, 2007

It’s not been the best of news for Apple since they announced the iPhone at the World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco earlier this year. So far they’ve been faced with stiff competition from the likes of LG with their Prada touch screen phone, and the most recent Samsung F700 Ultra Smartphone, the latter of which has already been said to have killed off the iPhone.

But as far as lawsuits go, Apple’s legal department must be a busy bunch of bees at the time of writing this article.

Cisco

The first and most talked about lawsuit was from Cisco. As we all know, Cisco have a VOIP (Voice-Over-IP) communications device that goes by the name of iPhone, something Apple knew about long before the iPhone even entered the rumour mill. The lawsuit is a rather silly one, based on a name only, as no concept or ideas were stolen, just a name. Cisco is claiming that it has owned the iPhone name since early 2000, which they acquired when they took over Infogear, 7 years prior to the release of the Apple iPhone.

Cisco is being fair in this lawsuit though, giving Apple plenty of time to respond and hoping to agree to an out-of-court settlement. So far the deadline for a response from Apple’s legal team has been put back twice, with their newly extended date being February 21st, 2007. Only time will tell what happens between these two companies, but it seems an out-of-court settlement is most likely.

Read more

LG Electronics

The next lawsuit is one in the making, and Apple awaits news as to whether a lawsuit will result from the accusations presented by LG. According to LG, Apple has stolen the concept and ideas of the Prada phone, which resembles the iPhone in both look and feel. However, the similarities for the phones end there, as the Prada and iPhone have a variety of different features under the hood, such as the Prada’s tri-band GSM support to the iPhone’s quad-band, to name one very vague example.

This lawsuit in the making was originally a rumour but only a few days ago the head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:

“We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”

We take that to mean “Apple stole our idea.”

With all the patents that have been flying around the internet since the summer of 2006, I dare say Apple has enough to cover themselves on this one, but again, only time will tell what happens between the two companies.

Read more

Quantum Research

Earlier this year, Quantum Research (QR) began a lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the fruity-technology giant used the QR patented capacitive touch-sensing technology on the iPod click-wheel. One month later, QR is at it again, this time claiming that the charge transfer technology used on the iPhone’s rear surface touch screen is QR patented. According to licensing director at QR, Duncan Bryan, “The description of the iPhone suggests it uses a rear surface touch screen, and has proximity sensing which can tell if it is held to the ear. That’s a QR capability.”

The news of this possible lawsuit has only just appeared earlier this week, so details are a little sketchy at this point, but given QR’s current lawsuit on the iPod Nano’s click-wheel, I dare say this one will come to light within the next couple of weeks.

Read more

I think it’s a shame some of this is happening, but that’s the price you pay when you’re a multi-billion dollar company with lots of money to pay people in order to stop moaning. But could the three parties in question have a case, or is it simple a case of “grow up and get lost?”

Comments

  • The lawsuit is a rather silly one, based on a name only, as no concept or ideas were stolen, just a name.

    Silly?  Tell that to Apple, who have been ridiculously sue-crazy over the word “pod,” even with devices that aren’t remotely related to the iPod. 

    So getting sued for being totally aware of the iPhone, an existing trademark for an actual phone device, and the lawsuit is far more legitimate (re: not silly) than any of Apple’s bone-headed sue-happy stunts in the past.

    that’s the price you pay when you’re a multi-billion dollar company with lots of money to pay people in order to stop moaning.

    That’s where you really have to hand it to Apple.  In their ridiculous lawsuits, they always go after the little guys who have little choice but to change their product names or shut down. 

    Although not once when Hadley or any of the other apologists were defending them, did I ever hear the words “grow up and get lost.”  Strange.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Feb 20, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • For the record, I think Cisco definitely has a case, LG doesn’t (although had the Prada come out a month after as opposed to a month before, everyone including Apple would be accusing them of ripping off the iPhone), and Quantum possibly has a case depending on the patents.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Feb 20, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • LG could be accused of ripping-off all the next generation widescreen iPod Photoshop mock-ups we’ve all been seeing posted on Mac fan/rumor sites since the video update to the current iPod design. Afterall, the iPhone is when you think about it, a juiced-up next generation iPod.

    cloudwall had this to say on Feb 21, 2007 Posts: 21
  • For the record, I think Cisco definitely has a pretty lame case, in that it has never protected the iPhone trademark, and went for the longest time without even using it…

    Cisco only use for the trademark is to parasitise enthusiasm for Apple’s iPhone. And that is a pretty crap claim to ownership of the word.

    Benji had this to say on Feb 21, 2007 Posts: 927
  • Cisco only use for the trademark is to parasitise enthusiasm for Apple’s iPhone.

    Because every tech company in the world exists only in its relationship to what it can copy or steal from Apple.  And considering the trademark is five years old, that’s pretty clairvoyant of Cisco. 

    Nope, you’re definitely not a Mac kool-aid drinker, Ben.  Not at all.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Feb 21, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • Benji had this to say on Feb 22, 2007 Posts: 927
  • In a joint statement, Apple and Cisco said that each company has full rights to the iPhone trademark and that all pending actions covering the trademark will be dismissed.

    Looks like the lawyers agreed with my interpretation.

    Benji had this to say on Feb 22, 2007 Posts: 927
  • Looks like the lawyers agreed with my interpretation.

    So Apple thought that Cisco’s suit was so lame and silly that they SETTLED?  Um, yeah.  If your interpretation were correct, then Cisco made out like bandits in this agreement.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Feb 22, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • No, Apple thought that Cisco’s lawsuit was so lame they didn’t respond to the subpoenae, and settled the lawsuit to avoid costly and distracting court proceedings.

    Because every tech company in the world exists only in its relationship to what it can copy or steal from Apple.  And considering the trademark is five years old, that’s pretty clairvoyant of Cisco.
    Nope, you’re definitely not a Mac kool-aid drinker, Ben.  Not at all.

    So here you make out completely falsely that I’m implying “every tech company in the world exist only in its relationship to what it can copy or steal from Apple”, a ridiculous statement with no relevance to my opininion, and accuse me of drinking Kool-aid for playing in this fictitious game inside your head.

    Congratulations: a new low.

    Benji had this to say on Feb 22, 2007 Posts: 927
  • I have found that, even with this great Apple TV we still need a video converter (things like Apple TV Converter) in case to put our favourite movies onto Apple TV before playing them on TV Screen.

    My apple tv converter
    http://www.apple-tv-converter.com

    janeclark had this to say on Mar 28, 2007 Posts: 4
  • TV Converter) in case to put our favourite movies onto Apple TV before playing them on TV Screen.  Pass4sure 642-974642-446Pass4sure 156-215.70Pass4sure 312-50Pass4sure 642-617Pass4sure F50-531Pass4sure C-TADM51-70640-864Pass4sure 650-177Pass4sure 642-627Pass4sure 642-647Pass4sure 642-165 |

    Mathew david had this to say on Aug 15, 2011 Posts: 37
  • I had no idea that the Iphone name had any connection with voip phones technology, but if you believe what the voip inventors say, you can simply observe that I-Phone is not that far from Vo Ip Phone… Hope that the truth comes out into the light.

    IBMdude had this to say on Aug 23, 2011 Posts: 50
  • Page 1 of 1 pages
You need log in, or register, in order to comment