| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Oct | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||




This is so interesting to me. Not really. Well a little.
I get how Cisco wants to protect its intellectual property. I don’t get how they want to parlay it into a piece of the action. At the end of the day, only Apple gets to be Apple, and from the perspective of public opinion, which is what a lawsuit inspires, I don’t know if this was the right move on Cisco’s part.
There are tons of theories going around on this… that iPhone is too general to be trademarked or that the trademark doesn’t apply to cell phones. All sorts of stuff. But here’s my theory: when Apple even mentions that name for their amazing new product, it basically puts that product in people’s minds with that term. Now, whenever people see a Cisco iPhone product they’ll just roll their eyes and say, “That’s not the real iPhone.” So Apple can say to Cisco, “So now iPhone is basically worthless to you. Sell it to us at a reasonable price or get nothing.” It’s a bit ruthless, but it’s lame that Cisco used that name in the first place since iWhatever is Apple’s thing. I feel no pity for them.
Actually, I think there is value in it for Cisco because now their completely undifferentiated-from-its-competitors VOIP product has the cachet associated with the newest Apple thingmabob. Cisco’s a bunch of bitches.
…and regardless of who the suit settles, we’ll all be talking on Apple iPhones in June. David can you get us near the top of the long wait list?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.