So-Cal Trademark/Patent/Copyright Attorney Blog

Fender Denied Trade Dress Protection for Guitar Designs

2009-06-23T08:53:00.000-07:00

On June 9, 2009, The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denied Fender Musical Instruments Corporation trade dress protection for Fender’s Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision guitar body designs. Over a dozen guitar makers, including close competitor Peavey Electronics Corporation, joined the five year long opposition to the Fender applications.

The opposers challenged the applications on the grounds that the designs were generic, or in the alternative, have not acquired distinctiveness. Most compelling was that Fender’s design was so common that it appeared in the Random House Dictionary under the entry for “guitar.” The Board also observed that Fender had never treated the designs as trademarks since their inception over 50 years ago. Further, the Board found no efforts by Fender to police or otherwise object to other manufactures using similar guitar shapes.

The Board found that the Fender’s guitar designs were generic and had not acquired distinctiveness because the guitar body shapes did not have a “source-identifying significance.” The denial by the Board effectively eliminates Fender’s ability to use trademark law to protect its famous designs. Although design patents and copyright could have provided some overlapping legal protection for designs, both methods are limited to a term of years. Trade dress protection would have been significant because it would have allowed Fender theoretical protection in perpetuity.

Keyword Advertising using Third Party Trademarks Becoming a Thing of the Past?

2009-02-16T11:59:00.000-08:00

In the wild, wild, west of search engine keyword advertising, companies have recently been safe using the trademarks of other companies to make their own ads appear. This has been true on Google in the U.S. so long as the third party trademark was not actually used in the resulting ad. With some recent litigation by American Airlines, this may be changing.

American Airlines recently ended a keyword advertising lawsuit against Google which yielded an undisclosed settlement agreement in American Airlines’ favor. The settlement apparently involved an agreement by Google to cease all sale of ads using the “American Airlines” search phrase. This appears to be the case because Google no longer displays ads for that search.

Three months after settling the Google case, American Airlines has filed a similar lawsuit against popular search engine company Yahoo!, claiming that Yahoo!’s company policy allowing advertisers to buy keyword advertising utilizing its trademark is leading to dilution of the American Airlines trademark and misleading consumers.

Because the advertisements that appear on the search results page are almost always for goods or services similar to those sought in the search, it is quite possible that a consumer may click on a link only to find themselves at a website that wasn’t the one they were looking for. In other words, a wrong click on a search results page for American Airlines might have landed users on a webpage belonging to a competitor or copycat. American Airlines is seeking monetary damages, punitive damages, and associated legal costs in the suit. They have also asked that Yahoo! remove the offending keyword ads, which it has already done.

Though there is no precedent-setting judgment, the American Airlines’ lawsuits may be setting the stage for a major shift in keyword advertising – and a favorable outcome for trademark owners.

Two Friends Take On Nordstrom in a Trademark Dispute

2009-02-16T11:36:00.001-08:00

It’s the classic American story of the underdog taking on big business. A small clothing company, run by two friends who have been business partners for 20 years, currently finds itself mired in a lawsuit with Nordstrom, Inc.

In 2006, Rebecca Sather and Ann Prater filed for the trademark BECKONS for use in relation to pants, shirts, t-shirts, shorts, dresses, sweatpants, and jackets. The Application, which later registered, was filed in 2006 with dates of first use that same year. In 2007, Nordstrom filed for BECKON on an intent to use basis for use in relation to women’s fashion accessories. Originally the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office approved the Nordstrom BECKON application and it was allowed for publication despite the pre-existing registration for BECKONS. Sather and Prater then filed an Opposition, noting the similarity of the two marks and the goods. The PTO re-evaluated Nordstrom’s Application and issued an Office Action, citing the BECKONS mark owned by Sather and Prater as a basis for refusal. Nordstrom responded by filing a petition to cancel the original BECKONS trademark, arguing that Sather and Prater were not using the trademark on all goods as alleged in their Application. Both of the trademarks are currently suspended pending the outcome of the case.

For Sather and Prater, whose entire business is now threatened, this is a sobering tale about the need to be relentless in understanding, securing, and enforcing trademark rights because a properly filed Application would have avoided the dispute.

RIAA Policy Shift?

2009-01-08T16:04:00.000-08:00

Signaling a possible dramatic shift in policy, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) told The Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago that it would no longer be prosecuting individual users for suspected copyright infringement. Instead, the RIAA will ask Internet Service Providers (ISPs) of the purported thieves to issue a warning, and then cut off all internet access after three warnings.

This change is likely due to the escalating costs of litigation and the RIAA’s tarnished public reputation. Whether the RIAA will accomplish its goals with respect to copyright infringement will probably be a contentious issue in the U.S. Courts for the next few years.

Real Life Second Life Trademark Disputes

2008-12-12T10:21:00.001-08:00

Linden Labs, makers of the popular internet game Second Life, may not be able to claim their game to be “escapist fun” much longer. Second Life is a multi-user, on-line gaming world where players can create digital versions of themselves and engage with other users in virtual worlds. You can also buy virtual real estate or create any number of objects, like clothing, kitchenware, or even virtual paintings to sell or share with other users. It is these creations that have fallen into the category of Second Life Art or “slart”, a term which was trademarked by one Second Life user, Richard Minsky, and is now at the center of a trademark dispute.

The case hinges on the make-up of the trademark itself, SLART. Linden Labs claims that ‘SL’ is part of their trademark and users are only allowed to use the letters if they’re followed by a space and two generic nouns, like “SL Café Table”. Minsky, however, contends that he trademarked SLART fairly and that Linden Labs failed to respond to his requests in March to discipline another user who was using the word “slart” in conjunction with a virtual art gallery. One problem may lie in the fact that the word slart may have become a generic term in the game for any art created within the confines of the Second Life world. The pending case will prove to be an interesting test of the application of trademark law to a virtual world.

Google Copyright Settlement Will Change Publishing

2008-11-17T08:55:00.001-08:00

Google recently settled a lawsuit with The Association of American Publishers and the resulting settlement agreement will likely change the face of the publishing world. The terms of the agreement, which are still pending legal approval, allow Google to continue its scanning project of books that are out-of-print but still under copyright. Libraries, universities, and corporations will be able to subscribe to gain complete access to Google’s database of scanned works, while individual users will also be able to view the materials for a fee. Google will also allow authors to “opt out” of sharing their works in the database.

Google maintains that the people who will benefit the most from this new database are readers, as works that were rendered unavailable will become easily accessible once more. However, not all readers see the settlement as perfect; some have complained that Google’s user interface is clumsy and the quality of their scans poor. Others worry that Google will suddenly have a monopoly over works that were once considered public domain, or charge exorbitant fees for public domain works. More drastically, Harvard University, home to one of the country’s largest university libraries and one of the original partners in Google’s scanning project, has announced that pending legal approval of the settlement it will no longer participate in the project if it includes works that are under copyright, as its students and faculty are concerned over the copyright consequences of Google’s actions.

The PRO-IP Act Becomes Law

2008-10-27T18:05:00.001-07:00

Last week President Bush signed a sweeping Intellectual Property protection bill into law. The bill, called the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008, is meant to strengthen enforcement of intellectual property rights. It also creates a position for an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, or a “Pirate Czar”, as it’s quickly been nicknamed by the press. The Pirate Czar’s job would be to form a committee of knowledgeable advisors, act as liaison with a newly formed Department of Justice task force, and compile a plan about how to stop piracy of movies, music, and other valuable Intellectual Property.

The plan has watchdog groups skeptical of the PRO-IP Act’s usefulness. Internet websites are well known for their chameleon-like ability to adapt to any situation. Savvy Internet users who find that their favorite source of pirated entertainment has been shut down are highly likely to look elsewhere and find exactly what they want, just in another virtual location. Furthermore, the PRO-IP Act has a broad provision providing for the seizure of assets which worries many privacy rights advocates. The appointment of the IP/Pirate Czar, and further updates on the effectiveness of the legislation, will be forthcoming.

Better (Trade) Dressed: Vitaminwater or Vitaminshampoo?

2008-10-13T07:27:00.000-07:00

Glaceau, manufacturer of the popular sports drink Vitaminwater, recently brought an action against Vogue International due to its new product called Vitaminshampoo. In addition to trademark issues, the suit involves a disagreement over trade dress. Trade dress includes the total “look” of a brand.

In the case of Vitaminwater, the brand has distinctive labels for its bottles, as well as a pending trademark application for the shape of the bottle. Vitaminshampoo, although in a larger bottle, has a label that is very similar to Vitaminwater’s, right down to the font of the text and visual layout. Vitaminshampoo has already been advertised in trendy fashion magazines, leading to several emails from interested readers to Glaceau inquiring when the new shampoo product would be available. Attorneys for Glaceau argue that these emails are tangible proof that the likelihood of confusion between the two products is real. For its part, Vogue International maintains that the goods are too different to be confused; after all, who would go to the shampoo aisle of the drug store and think they were buying drinking water? However, the law is on Glaceau’s side so far. A Southern District court judge issued a temporary restraining order against Vogue International, which bars the company from distributing, manufacturing, or advertising Vitaminshampoo. Settlement talks between the two companies are reportedly underway.

‘Harry Potter’ Author Victorious in Copyright Case

2008-09-30T18:25:00.001-07:00

On September 8, 2008, New York District Court Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. ruled in favor of Warner Brothers and J. K. Rowling in a suit over copyright infringement and fair use of original material by fans. The defendant, RDR Books, had sought to publish “The Harry Potter Lexicon”, a compilation of the popular Harry Potter fan website. The plaintiffs protested that the book would not constitute fair use of Rowling’s works and that it often copied verbatim from Rowling’s original writing. Judge Patterson agreed, concluding that in many instances the Lexicon work paraphrased Rowling’s work too closely, and often merely summarized the plots of the novels without adding any new material. Furthermore, Judge Patterson pointed out that sales of the Lexicon would damage Rowling’s works, including future publications like Rowling’s own planned encyclopedia of the books.

The case has divided fans of the popular series of novels. Some have bitterly protested that Rowling’s motives for being involved in the suit are suspect and the suit itself is a slap in the face of serious fans who put time and energy into creating appreciative fan works. Other fans maintain that Rowling was correct to maintain control over her work, and that the Lexicon did not constitute fair use. Whichever side fans are on, sales of Rowling’s work are doing incredibly well: her next book, The Tales of Beedle of the Bard, is currently ranked at #21 on Amazon.com’s bestseller list—and it’s not even going to be released until December.

The Last Best Trademark

2008-09-14T12:29:00.001-07:00

The catchphrase “The Last Best Place” has become popular with many Montanans as the state’s official slogan. U.S. Trademark Applications were never filed, but “The Last Best Place” has been used all over the state, from tourism campaigns to local real estate brokers.

Then, in 2002, an out-of-state businessman bought land in Montana and built a luxury ranch-hotel. He simultaneously filed U.S. Trademark Applications for protection of “The Last Best Place”, not only for use in relation to the hotel, but also for other goods and services like kitchenware and clothing. Amid furor from locals that an “out of towner” would attempt to appropriate the phrase for commercial use, the governor and the state Senators immediately condemned the federal applications and sought to block them. After several years of lawsuits and a subsequent appeal, Montana Senator Max Baucus was able to finalize language in the recent budget bill that prohibits the Department of Commerce from issuing a trademark for “The Last Best Place”.

The U.S. Applications for “The Last Best Place” still show as pending at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but it appears as though they are doomed.

Metatag Use of Trademarks Constitutes Use in Commerce, Court Rules

2008-08-22T08:34:00.000-07:00

Metatags are website programming elements that average Internet users never see. However, they influence the viewing habits of millions. A metatag is written into the header of a webpage’s code and gives directions to search engines about what content or keywords may be found on the webpage (although the tag itself never appears on the page.) Unscrupulous web programmers and advertisers often try to “stack the deck” by adding as many keywords as possible in the metatag programming, hoping to end up in first or second place on a search results page.

This practice is even riskier after a Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favor in North American Medical v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc. Attorneys for North American argued that by placing North American’s trademarks in the metatags of Axiom’s webpages, Axiom was committing trademark infringement. The Eleventh Circuit agreed concluding that placing trademarks in the metatags section of the webpage did constitute a use in commerce. The Court also ruled that by using its competitor’s trademarks in the metatags, Axiom had created a likelihood of confusion. The lessons of the case are clear: companies and individuals should be very careful how they create ad copy in all parts of their website, metatag or not.

Facebook Says Goodbye to ‘Scrabulous’

2008-08-15T10:26:00.001-07:00

A wildly popular Facebook application is no longer available, much to the disappointment of millions of users. Scrabulous, which functioned like a running Scrabble game that users could play over hours, days, and even weeks, was suspended by Facebook after Hasbro, the owner of Scrabble, brought suit against the website and the creators of the application. (The creators wasted no time in modifying their version of Scrabulous and releasing a new game application called ‘Wordscraper’, which looks and feels very much like Scrabble but has subtly different rules and can be customized by its users.)

Apart from infringing on the Scrabble trademark, the crux of the controversy is the question of what material is protectable by copyright law. Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Act states that an idea cannot be protected by copyright law, but the expression of the idea can be. The concept of Scrabble (or Scrabulous), a game where players use lettered tiles to spell words and earn points, is simply an idea and not protectable. However, the expression of that idea through the Scrabble trademark, the instructions of the game, and the designs of the board and box, is protectable. Hasbro recently released an “official” version of the Scrabble game for Facebook users. Its success has been limited so far as users complain that it’s not as good as Scrabulous.

Bratz Dolls Designs Subject to Work for Hire Clause

2008-08-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

The New York Times recently reported that Barbie doll maker Mattel scored a huge victory against MGA Entertainment, maker of the highly popular Bratz doll line. A federal judge ruled that Bratz designer Carter Bryant, who had worked at Mattel prior to his success with the Bratz dolls, had committed copyright infringement by not respecting the Work for Hire clause in his Mattel contract. Copyrights of works created under such a clause belong to the company commissioning the work, not the designer. The judge also found that MGA’s chief executive had colluded with Carter Bryant to convert Mattel property for their own purposes.

Damages in the trial have not yet been awarded. Mattel has already seen an upswing in its stock price at the news.

Court Rules that Tiffany & Co., not eBay, should police its trademark

2008-07-23T21:43:00.000-07:00

In a recent ruling involving Tiffany and eBay, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that eBay can't be held liable for trademark infringement "based solely on their generalized knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring on their websites."

Tiffany had sued eBay to remove bogus items and immediately suspend sellers that Tiffany suspected of trademark infringement. Tiffany’s legal team had alleged that eBay should more closely scrutinize its sellers and their merchandise in order to better crack down on numerous instances of trademark infringement and counterfeit jewelry sales. Tiffany also sought monetary damages.

eBay claimed that it was not in a position to determine which goods were counterfeit and that Tiffany did not consistently participate in eBay’s programs to prevent trademark infringement. eBay also contended that it was working diligently to respond to allegations of trademark infringement and that it could not be entirely responsible for the actions of its users.

According to Judge Richard Sullivan, “Tiffany has not alleged, nor does the evidence support a conclusion, that all of the Tiffany merchandise sold through eBay is counterfeit…Were Tiffany to prevail on its argument that generalized statements of infringement were sufficient to impute knowledge to eBay of any and all infringing acts, Tiffany’s rights in its mark would dramatically expand, potentially stifling legitimate sales of Tiffany goods on eBay…”

The moral of this story for trademark owners? You must diligently police your own trademark.

Court Rules Selling Promo CDs Doesn’t Constitute Copyright Infringement

2008-07-11T14:30:00.000-07:00

In June, a District Court Judge in San Francisco dismissed a suit by Universal Music Group against Troy Augusto, a man who had been selling promotional copies of UMG CDs on eBay. The attorneys for Universal, which has produced recordings for artists such as 50 Cent, Elvis Costello, and Melissa Etheridge, argued that by ignoring the labels that designated the CDs as “personal use only, not for resale”, Augusto was infringing on the recording giant’s copyright.

The court, however, sided with Augusto and ruled that his actions were protected under the first sale doctrine, which states that once copyrighted material has been sold or given as a gift to a consumer, the consumer has the right to sell it, give it away to another person, or even destroy it. A promotional CD, even one labeled “not for resale,” constitutes a gift and therefore the court ruled that Mr. Augusto could do with it whatever he pleased.

Sony Sued Over Buzz Quiz Games

2008-04-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

Buzztime Entertainment has filed suit against Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (‘Sony’) over their super-popular Buzz! series of Play Station 3 quiz games, claiming the franchise violates several of their trademarks.

Buzztime, maker of electronic trivia games most frequently found in restaurants and bars, is claiming that Sony’s use of the name Buzz! and the slogan, "It's time to get buzzing" infringes on its trademarks. While Buzztime owns the trademarks for several "buzz" related words and phrases, such as BUZZTIME, BUZZHEAD, SHARE THE BUZZ, AND BUZZKIDS, it does not own a trademark for BUZZ or BUZZ!

Buzztime wants the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny Sony's pending trademark application for BUZZ! They have also asked for a recall and destruction of the offending products, actual and punitive damages, and legal fees.

Because it appears that the names and goods are similar enough to cause consumer confusion, it appears that Buzztime has a legitimate case for at least an injunction which would prevent further use of the BUZZ! trademark by Sony.

House Considers a Steep Increase in Law Enforcement and Penalties for Copyright Infringement

2008-03-12T11:42:00.000-07:00

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007, or “PRO-IP,” is currently pending in the House of Representatives.

PRO-IP would, among other things, increase statutory damages in copyright cases by letting copyright holders recover individually for each work in a copyrighted compilation. For example, each song on a CD could be counted as a separate infringement for the purpose of calculating statutory damages.

PRO-IP was introduced to the House on December 5, 2007 and presented to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on December 13, 2007. At that hearing, consumer rights group Public Knowledge argued that statutory damages already impose disproportionate penalties for infringement and pointed out that copyright owners can already get actual damages in those cases where statutory damages are not enough.
On the other hand, the bipartisan committee sponsoring PRO-IP said it will stem what one representative called the “tsunami” of counterfeiting and piracy. The bill is supported by some labor unions and industry groups.

For additional information the text of the bill is at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.4279:

Research in Motion settles trademark infringement lawsuit with Samsung

2007-02-09T08:25:00.000-08:00

Blackberry maker Research in Motion has confirmed that they have now settled a lawsuit filed against Samsung Electronics related to their Blackjack trademark.

RIM had claimed that the Samsung’s Blackjack cell phones were infringing its trademarks to the blackberry range of telecom products. The company said in a statement: “RIM is very pleased to have reached a mutually beneficial settlement agreement that includes immediate provisions for the protection of RIM’s valuable trademarks.”

However, RIM has not released the specific terms of the agreement. The company just mentioned that the deal includes “limitations on use of the Blackjack trademark and withdrawal of the U.S. Trademark Application for Blackjack”.

CNBC 'Money Honey' seeks branding trademark

2007-02-09T08:15:00.000-08:00

CNBC news anchor Maria Bartiromo wants to sweeten the pot on her "Money Honey" nickname, making it a brand on children's TV, piggy banks and cookie jars. Bartiromo filed several trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark her Money Honey moniker.

The trademark applications show that Bartiromo is casting a wide net. Besides kids' TV and books, the Money Honey trademark would appear on school supplies, DVDs, mouse pads, jigsaw puzzles, dolls, and backpacks, among other items. The applications were filed on Jan. 16.
Bartiromo was not available for comment.

Winnie the Pooh rights holder trying to force Disney to cancel trademark registrations

2007-02-09T07:57:00.000-08:00

In the latest move in a long struggle with Walt Disney Co. over the rights to A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh, Stephen Slesinger Inc. petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel Disney's trademark registrations over the 80-year-old bear and his friends.

Stephen Slesinger Inc. is a film production company named after the literary agent who bought merchandising and other rights to Winnie the Pooh from Milne in the 1930s. The company sued Disney in 1991 claiming that Disney owed it several hundred million dollars in royalties for Pooh movies and merchandise. Slesinger also sought to cancel its 1983 licensing agreement with Disney, citing alleged contract breaches. The case was dismissed in 2004, but Slesinger is appealing the dismissal.

In 2002, Disney's entertainment unit and Milne's granddaughter filed suit against Slesinger to terminate A.A. Milne's grant of the Pooh rights to the literary agent and his company. A district court ruled against Disney and Clare Milne's right to terminate Slesinger's rights, and an appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Disney's appeal.

Disney spokesman Jonathan Friedland said the allegations in Slesinger's petition to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are same they've made in their earlier case that was dismissed.
"This is by no means anything more than the 'same old, same old,'" he said.

Apple settles trademark dispute with The Beatles

2007-02-09T07:53:00.000-08:00

Apple Inc. has settled its lengthy trademark dispute with The Beatles (music)-owned Apple Corps Ltd, which opens the door to the legendary rock band's music to be sold via Apple Inc.'s iTunes Music store.

The two companies have agreed that Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to the brand name "Apple" and its logos, and will "license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use," according to a press release. Both parties have also agreed to pay their own legal costs for the battle they had waged prior to the settlement.

"We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks," Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs said in a prepared statement. "It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."

Apple Inc. and Apple Corps Ltd originally entered into an agreement in 1991, the language of which prohibited Apple Inc. from using the Apple trademark and logo in association with music sales; the company's offerings at the time were limited to computers. The recently settled dispute arose several years ago, after Apple Inc. launched its iTunes Music Store and iPod digital-music player, both of which have become the leaders of their respective markets.

Apple Corps Ltd--owned by Paul McCartney; Ringo Starr; John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono; and the estate of the late George Harrison--continues to withhold The Beatles' work from the digital-music marketplace despite a major adoption of the format by most artists and record labels. The company announced last April that The Beatles' entire catalog was being digitally remastered in preparation for its yet-to-be-announced online release.

Whose iPhone is this?

2007-02-09T07:40:00.000-08:00

Cisco Systems is suing Apple over the computer maker's use of the iPhone trademark. The two companies hadn't finished negotiations over the term when Apple's iPhone debuted at Macworld Expo. Now Cisco is seeking an injunction that will prevent Apple from using the name as well as damages from the company.

Cisco said in the complaint that Apple had attempted to get rights to the iPhone name several times, but after Cisco refused, the company created a front company to try to acquire the rights another way, according to the lawsuit (PDF: Cisco's trademark complaint.)

"We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman. "There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products," Kerris said. "We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."

Cisco said in its complaint that Apple had first approached the company about acquiring the rights to the iPhone trademark in 2001. Over the years, Apple continued to make requests for the rights, including several attempts in 2006, Cisco said.

"Each time, Apple was told that Cisco was not interested in ceding the mark to Apple," Cisco's complaint reads. Apple apparently was not willing to accept Cisco's decision, so it created a Wilmington, Del.-based front company called Ocean Telecom Services that applied to use the trademark in the U.S. on September 26, 2006, according to Cisco's complaint. That company, Cisco says in the filing, is "owned or otherwise controlled by Apple and is the alter ego of Apple."

"This was just brass balls on the part of Steve (Jobs), to go in there and just grab that trademark and not pay a license for it or negotiate. It's the height of arrogance," Kay said. "He basically thinks he can get away with it."

However, it's likely that the two companies will settle their differences, as prolonged litigation doesn't really serve either company, Kay said. "Apple is playing chicken with Cisco, and there's other companies I'd rather play chicken with," he said, referring to Cisco's deep pockets.