toggle

AAPL Stock: 98.89 ( + 1.22 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

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."




by MacNN Staff

POST TOOLS:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. l008com

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    ummmmmm

    >> "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.

  1. slider

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Not that hard to guess

    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.

  1. jarod

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Rob Enderle

    should get out of the analysis business. If this guy knew the difference between his a** and a clue...pigs would fly.

  1. hokizpokis

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    SPECULATION

    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...

  1. bfalchuk

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Total FUD

    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.

  1. trevj

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    "Independent" analyst?!?

    Rob Enderle independent?!? Of whom? Of what? He hasn't has an independent thought since Microsoft was formed.

  1. gskibum3

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Read Between The Lines...

    "Independent" means "Hates Apple and/or Steve Jobs."

  1. mjtomlin

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    trademarks

    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.

  1. debohun

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Cicsco's luck

    If Cisco's managed to get out of this without having to hire defense attorneys, they they should count themselves lucky not shafted.

  1. slider

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    RE: trademarks

    If you're correct, it makes some sense out of the announcement the two companies made. Thanks.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

JBL Synchros E40BT headphones

For all the different configurations of headphones on the market, it's always a tough choice for buyers to get something that is just ...

Razer Taipan mouse

The list of gaming devices is growing larger with each passing day. A large number of companies have entered the gaming input arena, a ...

Cambridge Audio DacMagic XS

Every computer with a microphone or headphone port has one -- a digital to analog converter (DAC). There are nearly as many chipsets a ...

toggle

Most Commented