Cisco 'shafted' in Apple iPhone deal
updated 05:25 pm EST, Thu February 22, 2007
Analyst: Apple tops Cisco
[digg this] The resolution between Apple and Cisco over the disputed iPhone name yesterday appears to have gone Apple's way, according to independent tech analyst Rob Enderle. The two companies agreed to several legal extensions following the Cisco lawsuit over the iPhone trademark, and under that agreement both companies are free to use the iPhone trademark on their products throughout the world, but will dismiss any pending actions regarding the trademark. Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, consumer, and enterprise communications, according to the publicized terms. "It looks like Cisco caved," Enderle said, adding that the pledge of interoperability talks "looks like the typical promise that Steve Jobs has no intention of keeping."
Other terms of the agreement are confidential, making it difficult to say for sure which company came out on top in the negotiations. Technology analyst Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates, however, said the deal currently looks like a "face-saving" agreement for Cisco, according to USA Today.
"It looks like Cisco got shafted," Kay said. "Maybe there's something in the [undisclosed] terms, but I don't see how they're getting the good end of the deal."
ummmmmm
02/22, 05:43pm reply
>> "looks like the typical promise that Steve Jobs has no intention of keeping."
I'm sorry, it is typical for jobs to make promises and not keep them? Did I miss something here?
>>"terms of the agreement are confidential"
Funny how he's saying cisco got shafted when the next paragraph says that. Apple could have paid them BIG BUCKS so as to keep the name of the iPhone clean and spiffy.
This dude is just talking out of his a** because clearly he hates apple. What a dink.
l008com
Professional Poster
Joined: Jan 2000
Not that hard to guess
02/22, 05:49pm reply
If Apple wanted to implement a WiFi feature to iPod or iPod, and that feature required something built into Apple's Airport line, how does a users running a PC who doesn't want to buy an Airport and has an iPod running iTunes get to use that feature? Enter an exclusive deal with Cisco routers. Apple's got a huge music player market right now and they seem to know what their doing. Just a possibility of tapping into that market is a huge opportunity for Cisco. Not likely, OK, how about including VoIP on the Apple iPhone, and some of Apples patented Tech in to Cisco's iPhone offering? What if Cisco becomes the exclusive provider for VoIP on Apple's iPhone? There are a number of deals that could have been reached between the two companies are beneficial to each, to conclude that Cisco got shafted based on relatively no information about the deal, its a bit strong and probably FUD.
slider
Mac Elite
Joined: Oct 1999
Rob Enderle
02/22, 05:50pm reply
should get out of the analysis business. If this guy knew the difference between his a** and a clue...pigs would fly.
jarod
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Apr 2005
SPECULATION
02/22, 05:56pm reply
again the infamous macnn 'news article' based on well non-sense...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....
Reading articles about nothing is sooooo much fun.
(Instead why not write an article or two about some REAL developements in the MAC field??...)
ACTUALLY WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPEND AND WELL, WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENDED...BUT WE STILL WANT TO SPECUALTE ON WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENDED BECAUSE IT MAKES US LOOK LIKE WE ARE INTELLIGENT GEEKS....BUT IN REALITY JUST PROVES THAT WE CAN WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT NOTHING AND OUR GEEKY SUBSCRIBER BASE WILL ACCEPT IT AS ACTUAL NEWS...
hokizpokis
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2007
Total FUD
02/22, 06:11pm reply
I'm not a fanboy, but Enderle always sounds off anti-Apple, and is consistently wrong (misinformed, misinterprets/misquotes facts, etc).
Cisco said from the start all they wanted was interoperability with Apple (they didn't say on what products or how), so this is what Cisco was hoping for. How is that getting shafted or the short end of the stick?
It's fine not to like Apple, but it's not fine to misrepresent facts to sway people to your opinion.
bfalchuk
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2003
"Independent" analyst?!?
02/22, 06:12pm reply
Rob Enderle independent?!? Of whom? Of what? He hasn't has an independent thought since Microsoft was formed.
trevj
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Dec 1999
Read Between The Lines...
02/22, 06:19pm reply
"Independent" means "Hates Apple and/or Steve Jobs."
gskibum3
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2006
trademarks
02/22, 06:27pm reply
I *believe* Apple owns the iPhone trademark in a lot of countries outside the U.S. So if Cisco wanted to take the product international they would've needed to change the name. This agreement more likely just lets the other license the name in the areas they don't own the trademark.
mjtomlin
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 1999
Cicsco's luck
02/22, 07:37pm reply
If Cisco's managed to get out of this without having to hire defense attorneys, they they should count themselves lucky not shafted.
debohun
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 1999
RE: trademarks
02/22, 08:08pm reply
If you're correct, it makes some sense out of the announcement the two companies made. Thanks.
slider
Mac Elite
Joined: Oct 1999