Excellent response. It's amazing what wonders blogging can do.

This post reflects Cisco's openness in their communication. Very well explained. I just wished Apple showed some respect to Cisco's and its openhandedness.

Nag.B /at/
Startups.in/India

I am impressed by Cisco' transparency and willingness to communicate, especially so when these traits are exhibited by the senior management. Congratulations, Cisco. You're doing very well indeed.

too bad so sad for apple ... well actually it won't be that sad. they can call it whatever they want ... the masses will buy it.

It sounds like Mr. Jobs is going Wal-Mart route. Consumers don’t like superciliousness. Needless to say I as a consumer am turned off by Apple’s attitude in a big way. I will start by returning my second ipod nano that I just bought and I promise Apple will loss my spending of at least $3000 that I had planned on spending on various Apple products next month.
It is sad I admired both the companies Cisco and Apple, now I admire only one and despise Apple.

It sounds like Mr. Jobs is going Wal-Mart route. Consumers don’t like superciliousness. Needless to say I as a consumer am turned off by Apple’s attitude in a big way. I will start by returning my second ipod nano that I just bought and I promise Apple will loss my spending of at least $3000 that I had planned on spending on various Apple products next month.
It is sad I admired both the companies Cisco and Apple, now I admire only one and despise Apple.

Your post is very thorough and informative. I most definitely agree that CISCO is well within its rights to protect its trademark. I also agree that it was presumptuous and arrogant of Apple to launch with a name that it doesn't own. They should be called on it.

However ...

You lost me with your disingenuous and facile proclamations about "openness". Let us be blunt -- to the world at large, iPhone has always meant Apple. Cisco doesn't even own the domain "iPhone.com".

By insisting on "interoperability" of the products as your price, Cisco was attempting to use an asset it didn't create (i.e. the name "iPhone") as a means by which to leverage access not only Apple's design and technological advantages but also its obvious marketing savvy.

In short, this is not about "openness" and "transparency" -- it's about promoting your company's products by plugging into Apple's innovation and "buzz".

Again, I have no problem with Cisco calling Apple out on its power play. You have the right to protect your property. But please don't patronize us by trying to sell it as a noble blow for "openness".

Based on your statement, it seems clear to me that you were simply trying to use the naming dispute as a means of getting a piece of the iPhone action.

Excellent. Absolutely excellent, and that's coming from as big an Apple fan as you're likely to ever encounter. What Jobs and Company did was (and is) wrong.

Here's hoping for some sanity all the way around.

I think the two way street argument on IP and TM's is a very good point, one that should be driven home to all the Apple Zealots out there. Great transparent post, a credit to Cisco.

Thanks for the public explanation. I expect this will be an interesting lawsuit to follow. On the one hand, Cisco owns a trademark. On the other hand, trademarks consisting of a lowercase i followed by a capitalized noun have become so strongly associated by the general public with Apple.

My own theory is that Apple will not use the name iPhone. This has to be the most uninspiring name for such a technology forward device. If not a little sneaky too.

--Joey

Very well stated. Apple, where are you? Oh, that's right, you guys don't blog...

Time and time again we see the arrogance of Apple and Steve Jobs. According to your account, Apple basically said that, yeah, you own that name, but we're Apple, so we're going to use it anyway.

I wish you guys the best of luck.

Interesting read - but I'm confused about any intentions to 'interoperate in the future'; especially garnering the differences in brand and design. Your iPhone line and the Cisco line does not reach the same target demographic, the design and aesthetic is a drastic contrast, and it seems so about the user experience. While you have the name, I don't see anything you have to offer to support that device in the future for innovation.

This is not apple fanboy talk, I love my big beautiful cisco router - the Creative Director in me doesn't see a marriage between these two devices, though, or the brand of these two companies, save an issue with a name. I support protecting intellectual property - it just seems foolish that there would be any balance between the two, and that area of arguement seems moot. There must be an alterior reason, a company as expansive as Cisco wouldn't be that naive when it looks into the marketing realm, would it? You paid for the name, but Apple burned the 'i' into american lexicon - and the brands are very contrasting.

In the paragraph beginning with "Fundamentally" you'll find words like "interoperate", "network", "converged", and "collaboration", and then in the very next breath we read of the desire to "differentiate the brands", so as not to "confuse people".

Huh?

"Openness" Mr. Chandler may have, but his "clarity" is severely lacking.

And Mr. Chandler, it is about the money and, in business, this is no grounds for shame.

Great response. You took the right steps to protect your trademark. Thanks again for clarifying this!

Bravo. You see though, Apple sets a bad example for all. They are the first ones to cry fowl when someone copies them and the first one to rip off your innovation. They think their products are so good that they don't have to follow any rules.

Also, frankly, Apple thinks they are too good for Cisco, and that's why they won't collaborate, because Steve Jobs sh1t don't stink. He runs his workers into the ground and then treats them like garbage when they are not pulling all nighters.

I hate to sound so hateful but Nick Carr had a great post about how in today's world, technology is about opening up, creators are customers, even Microsoft designs websites that work in Firefox ( not always but they try) and the only hi tech company who is above all of this is Apple. They don't care what their product works with because in Steve Jobs word everyone owns all Apple products. 95 percent of the innovation that went into the iPhone was invented outside Cuppertino but you'll never hear Steve admit it. Apple, quit ripping people off, there are other companies that are well liked like Cisco and they need to be respected as well.

You know what Steve Jobs, I respect myself too much to use your product so go hang out with Al Gore, reminisce about how you all created everything, and remember, never like your product more than your customers do. Sorry to be so negative.

This lawsuit is all about the money, that's how business works.

Cisco was simply fortunate to own the iPhone trademark. Had Apple not likely been imminently coming out with a mobile phone product in January 2007 would Cisco have released a VoIP phone called the iPhone in December 2006? Now Cisco has legal grounds to sue Apple and make some easy money.

This doesn't make Apple's infringement of Cisco's trademark any more legal, and Cisco has all the right provided under law to sue Apple to protect its trademark, and indeed Cisco should sue Apple. But to pretend to take the moral high ground (ie., "It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement.") is just smart PR.

this is what will happen at the end of it all...

apple will be forced to change the actual name of the phone when it's released in june. cisco gets to keep the iphone name for their phone. when people see the apple phone, they will still call it iphone. when people hear iphone, they will still think of the apple phone. cisco's phone will be "the other iphone".

Excellent response. Cisco is fair and right on.

Cute story, fictional, but cute. I applaud your humanitarianism but please give us a break. There is no way Apple is going to carry your cheesy silver plastic low-end skype phone along on a multi billion dollar ride.

I'm quite sure Apple made an offer in monetary terms which would well compensate Cisco for any product revenue but you and I both know that tagging on the back of the biggest product announcement of the year is worth far more than that.

I know you didn't know what the product was or what it did or how it did it, even Apple's actual partners didn't until the launch. You shoved a piece of junk out the door weeks before the Apple launch to establish claim to an otherwise dormant trademark and provide a basis for damages in an eventual suit. How's that selling by the way?

I'm sure you legal types will work out fair compensation, as an AAPL and CSCO shareholder I expect as much, but please don't blow smoke up my rear end about your altruistic aims in the interim.

Mark,

Thank you for the response, and keeping the community aware of exactly what is going on here. It's an unfortunate thing that Apple decided to go ahead and make an announcement despite the lack of an official agreement. Here is to hoping that something can be worked out very shortly.

I cannot think of anything better for Cisco than being known as the company that forced the iPhone to have a different name. Yes, Cisco has copyrights and Apple is in the wrong, but does Cisco really want to anger all of the Apple fans of the world? I just wonder how long it will be for some Apple fan blog to call for the Cisco boycott...

Great response Mark. For those needing additional perspective regarding what this new iPhone twist might mean, look here...

Very reasonable approach. Thank you for your open thoughts. Although I do not know the exact terms listed in the Agreement, I do see that neither money nor loyalty being the deal breaker. So what is it? Why does Apple choose not to collaborate and to ally with Cisco? Is their arrogance blinding them? Are they afraid of Cisco's movement towards the consumer market and want to "teach" Cisco a lesson?
Although I do use and enjoy Apple products, I am still fully behind Cisco's decision to pursue and to protect the trademark. Just because one is the 800-lb. gorilla in a particular section of the consumer market one should not act like a bully. It's time Apple learns to play nice.

I hope the 'popular muscle' of Apple gets a nice charlie horse on this one. Well said, Mr. Chandler.

Hats off to Cisco for your candor on the subject and willingness to have a dialog with comments open to all-comers. Steve Jobs? Care to chime in here?

When I read this post, it's completely obvious why Apple didn't do the deal: you (Cisco) wanted not just a licensing agreement or the sale of a trademark but a business relationship ... in a sense, you wanted in.

That's something Apple's very reluctant to do unless there are extreme benefits (e.g., RIM-style push email via Yahoo, world's-best search/maps via Google) to the end user (and Apple).

It's hard to see how any kind of relationship with Cisco could have realistically provided any sustantive business benefits for Apple.

. . .
. . .

All that said, launching a major product like this with a looming trademark issue is astonishing to say the least.

My guess is that Apple is going to say it's the Apple iPhone, not the iPhone, and that is significant enough differentiation to avoid trademark violation. That's why their site apple.com/iphone/ now shows an Apple logo before the iPhone name.

It remains to see what a court will think of this ...

Simple, brilliant and accurate...a grand trio. Well done, Mark.

CR

Hi Mark,

http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2007/01/iphone-home-hello-cisco.html

We were wondering what happened (see post the day before).

Stay open, stay focused, keep going...

R&B

I am an Apple fan indeed, but I must say I fully understand and support your point of view. Thank you for the excellent answer, it is time for Apple to think that way, too.

I'm not sure you haven't shot yourself in the foot with this blog. You've said that this isn't about royalties but it's about Apple opening up their product to you.

That's not what trademark law is there for now is it? A trademark is not supposed to be a crowbar for gaining access to other people's products and IP. It's there to protect your own products not to prise open other people's products.

The reason we have trademarks is because if two companies produce products with the same name, it causes confusion amongst the customers. So someone buying an iPhone from Apple might think they're buying the Cisco iPhone their mate told them about. Trademark law is there to distinguish products.

You seem to be saying that you wanted to leverage your trademark to blur the distinction between the two products. Quite the opposite of what trademark law had in mind. If you thought that two iPhones could coexist in this world; yours and the apparently differentiable Apple phone, I don't see why this wasn't just about how much you were going to make Apple pay to use the name. Apple would probably have preferred to pay you a royalty, wouldn't they?

Of course you have a right to protect your trademark. I'm not sure you're correct in saying that Apple would have approached this in the same way. Apple seems to have historically simply blocked people from using their trademarks at all in any context or alternatively charged a royalty. I don't recall a precedent for them redesigning other people's products by negotiating trademark use. This will now devolve into a good ol' trademark battle in which you stand no hope of getting Apple to open up their product.

Guys disappointing. Your Linksys brick is not even close what we can name iphone. It's a junk segment. I think it would be far better to reach an agreement in financial instead of technical terms. Apples iphone works very different to the linksys mobile.
Believe me after Steve Jobs Keynote - Cisco management may defend a so called brand - but this legal hassle we'll just drop your stocks. Apple killed Skype in one day - it's over.

Very well explained. And, although I'm a big Apple-fan, i must admit, that you are simply right. Thats it.
I wondered for myself why Apple was calling it iPhone at the MacWorld Expo keynote. Didn't sound like it was a codename, that slipped.
So, go for it!

Cheers, joe

Very well put. You are of course right that Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. I hope Apple can learn something from this lawsuit.

AFAIK Cisco only own thr giths to 'iPhone' in the US. Apple own it in Europe and elsewhere. I'm not sure either you or Apple have a very strong argument frankly. The two of you should grow up and stop behving like spoiled brats.

I've never seen a suit explained as clearly as this before. Your openness is the reason that you will prevail in this suit. Thanks for posting this information for all of us to read! Great idea to blog it!

But then when has Apple shown any respect, the kind of arrogant egoist company it is.

Thanks for sharing your side of the story so openly. Great service to the community.

Good response, but I think that Cisco should just accept the fact that Apple has almost a monopoly on iXYZ names - they startet all this with the iMac, iLife, iWork, iPod, etc...
Just search Googlefight.com for "iPhone AND Apple" and "iPhone AND Cisco". Just ask anybody what the iPhone is, most people will say "Apples new phone" - only 2 days after Apple introduced it!
Accepting doesn't mean not to defend their trademark but keep civilized discussions going on instead of declaring a legal war.
Apple had this one Keynote to launch the iPhone, so they had no choice but to go with the iPhone name.

I applaud your openness on this issue Mark/Cisco.

I could be wrong but these are my thoughts:

Looks like the same aggressiveness of innovation that Steve Jobs re-introduced back into Apple has got Cisco beat here.

Now, after the MacWorld Keynote etc and the launch of iPhone publicly, Apple officially owns this word in the mind of consumers (and has for months now due to rumors and speculation).

All of this sounds like a setup for a lawsuit, but I wish companies would get back to listening to their bleeding edge customers in order to out-innovate their competitors. Not that Apple and Mac are really competitors... (well I guess they are in some markets) but still I think the point is valid.

But seriously, any word/brand with the little "i" in front of it is going to reek badly of being owned by Apple thus limiting potential marketability and clear definition of what the product is (esp if it's not an Apple product).

So what's left but an analogy to internet domain name squatting - Cisco should fight until Apple pays for their inability to play nice here.

Mark: Very well said. It is wonderful to see you discuss this matter openly and honestly with the facts. I am happy to see you and Cisco have joined the Cluetrain and disclosed the facts. It is too bad Apple can't follow through on proper business practices in a timely manner. The iPhone name isn't the first time Apple has pulled this game-- check out why Apple changed the name of their new AppleTV. It was introduced last year at ITV. If memory serves me right, there were trademark problems with that name as well.

Best of Luck--
Mary Wehmeier

It seems to me that this trademark fell into your lap, was never used, and Cisco was just squatting on it, attaching it to a product when you wanted to strengthen your case that it was actually used in trade.

If you guys are so sure that you have a strong case under the law, why are you asking for a jury trial? Plaintiffs usually prefer a non-jury trial when they have a strong case in a technical field like intellectual property, and a jury trial when they have a weak case and want to make an emotional appeal.

Very well said, and Apple ARE completly wrong, BUT Cisco have clearly tried to bully apple into a business deal that Apple would have no interest in whatsoever. If Apple wanted to launch a VoIP phone (and I'm sure they will) then they'd do it independently and be stupidly succesful.

Both companies are in the wrong, but Cisco SHOULD win the lawsuit.

Never the less, it will be known as the iPhone even if not in the official sense, and i will be buying one.

even if i realy can't agree with this 'openness that Cisco reflects' term. i think this open letter is a nice way to show the community more details about this suit about trademark infringement.

i am not at law expert. but well - apple might just have tought: "A: Well, how mutch money we might earn with our new (cool) iPhone product ? -B: Well how mutch might this lawsuit cost ?"

if previous history mentionted in this letter is all true. its my position that apple should pay hard for this kind of unfair practices.

(ps. sorry for bad engl. style)

Excellent post. On this one I have to agree with your position, it's time that Apple apply the rules they setup for others. Apple used to be a long time ago the open company with a different culture, but now it seems they are just showing too much rogue attitude.

If all the facts are right here, Cisco has the high ground by far. And it certainly is true that Apple would be even more aggressive if the roles were reversed. They've already shown that with the lawsuits over the "Pod" label.

Serves the Idiots at Apple right I have put my take on it on my blog.

Alwas thought it woudl end in tears.

I think after this disregard for you as a company you should make them change the entire product name.

No amount rebranding will end the confusion between these two products and you clearly have all the legal ammo you need to make this happen.

It would serve to teach them a little humility.

Oh and a public apology would be cool to see.

Nicely done - your openness and objectivity is appreciated.

Go get 'em Cisco! Apple's arrogance knows no bounds.

As much as I love the Apple phone, I have to agree with you guys here. Hopefully, you guys can settle this soon. I really don't see Apple sharing a name or a platform with another company. It's just not how they operate and so far that's worked out for them. That said, I would love to see Cisco using the iPhone name to push a Voip application and not hardware... like Skype. I think the brand would be perfect for it. Good luck.

Thanks for tha comment; a major blunder on Apple's part, in my opinion.

A very cool phone though!

Thanks for explaining your position. I think any company would be obligated to protect their intellectual property. I find the arrogance of Apple in this case to be appalling.

Thank you for standing up to Apple. I was shocked that they announced, and are promoting their phone based on another companies trademark..

You nailed it right on the nose when you said Apple will be aggressive when enforcing their trademarks - so what gives them the right to step on and infringe on another companies trademark?!?!

I'm glad that this happened with a major company (Cisco) because if it was a little guy who made a product in his bedroom and trademarked it, Apple would trounce all over it and still come out smelling like roses - Cisco will give Apple their due and hopefully prevent Apple from being so arrogant in the future.

Excelent, really smart and well explained. I think it is very important people to know about iPhone, Cisco iPhone.

The majority of the world don't know about Cisco's iPhone anyway, much less care about it. Given a choice most of the world would back Apple for the name. And Cisco's demands are, in my opinion, too much anywayz. The Apple iPhone interoperable with a Linksys VoIP? Not in the world man.

As usual, Apple's arrogance leads the way. The reality distortion field is strong in the Jobs.

Cisco have every right to protect their property and Apple need to wake up. I took Apple to be smarter than this, who knew.

I was also surprized to hear that news Apple announced new product named iPhone.
Actually, I got this information in Japan and I know Japanese products a lot .
In Japan, there is also a iPhone product which is famous for security system. At first, it will appear the problem with this Japanese company.
I'm not sure whethe there was an agument with this Japanese company or not. are there ?
I'm sure that Apple will boast that product and get large benefits someday, however, in my theory, I want you 'cisco' to insist and open approach that your product will interoperate in the future, though Apple ignore your intention.
I feel sympathy with your theory that if someone launched a product called iPod , Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights ! YES. that's right.
Anyway I hope you have a good agument with Apple again and Apple will make a concession with you.
Masaki Kakki

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80463

Yeah Cisco is really great at wanting a open a approach.

God forbid we forget that the internet needs to not be teired but be a "open approach"

I agree however apple screwed up but don't act all high and mighty, that cisco is the leader in open approaches. I'll be happy to list all the NON-open approaches your product line has in them.

While Cisco might have a legitimate grievance with the trademark infringement, it's not going to help Cisco sell their iPhone product. The purchase public associates the "i" prefix with Apple. Even if Apple changes the name of their product to the Apple Phone (the logical alternative), people are going to ask for Apple's iPhone, as they have already associated the name "iPhone" with Apple. Speculation on when Apple would put out the iPhone began long before Apple even contemplated such a product.

Wow. When I first heard the (Apple) iPhone announcement, I was wondering how long it would take for this to happen.

Seriously, it's not like Apple could really delay Jobs' keynote at MacWorld, or announce the (Apple) iPhone anywhere else, but wouldn't you think that'd encourage them to fix this worked out ahead of time?

If nothing else, their blatant disregard for Cisco's IP isn't going to help the (largely untrue, by the way - I'm no Apple hater) popular conception of Apple being a company by and for stuck-up jerks.

So sad. You guys are so sad.....

obviusly that you only want money, because all the products of apple are with "I" (Imac, Ipod,...) you are very bad because no one of your products have the name "I"(do you have Irouter? blah)

"Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission."

If your goal was collaboration, why did you announce a phone with with the iPhone name one month ago? Why not just give Apple the name, since you weren't using it, and it's the natural name for their phone. Why spoil things for Apple, when it would cost you nothing. Where would Cisco be, if it wasn't for Apple? Would there even be a Cisco? What I see in Cisco is smallmindedness.

Kudos to Cisco for presenting itself as compassionate and put-upon by the big, mean, ugly Apple monster. Even complete angels have to litigate every once in a while, especially when it comes to protecting the trademark on a product name nobody's ever heard or seen before this Tuesday.

Why haven't you sued the other iPhone trademark abusers?

Why have you allowed websites/newspapers/other media to continually associate the iPhone trademark with an Apple product?

Interesting. So you want to use the trademark that they wish to use as leverage to force them to design their product in a certain way (i.e. to use cisco great or to interop with your iphones).

Clever.

I wonder if there's a legal doctrine of "misuse of a trademark" just as their is for "misuse of a copyright."

Lame. It is just a name; get over it Cisco. Innovate, don't litigate. I'm a Cisco (and Apple) stockholder. My kids are Cisco and Apple stockholders. Cisco needs to stop this nonsense and get back to work creating some products for the future and stop trying to be a bully about a stupid name.

These statements contradict one another:

What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want.

I would consider collaboration a service and function of consulting and sharing.

Cisco is in a tight spot on this issue and I think while they will be able to defend it well, Apple will prevail because of the simple fact Cisco did not register iPhone.com (which the Internet Telephone Company owns), iPhone.org (which Apple owns) ... nor does Cisco own ALL international copyrights and trademarks to the name. (Apple owns 12 other trademarks for "iPhone" in OTHER countries)

Furthermore, products have been out FOR YEARS (called the iPhone) that are direct VOIP phone competitors ... why hasn't Cisco prosecuted them?

I also believe Cisco just PURPOSELY released their VOIP phone (and called it "iPhone") because they knew (as I did) that Apple was releasing a phone and were going to call it the "iPhone". I completely understand Cisco's position, but I think they are trying to take advantage of Apple in this particular instance.

Hi, great to find that Cisco is doing the employee blog thing:-)

Could you just clarify who "Cisco PR" is? Are these posts handled by a PR firm or do they come directly from senior Cisco personel?

I ask as the banner graphic sort of subliminally suggests an individual writer and the copy does nothing to counter this impression.

All the best,
Dug

Cisco Response: This entry is written by our General Counsel, Mark Chandler, and was posted by the Cisco PR team.

Clearly, Apple is in violation of Cisco's trademark on the iPhone name. But that's about where my "who's wrong in this" evaluation ends, as far as bashing Apple. Cisco says none of this is about money and it's all about "open technology."

Rubbish. Cisco may not want a "cut" of every iPhone sold. But they want access to the proprietary technology that Apple is using to create this phone. They say they want this information all in the "spirit of openness", but what they really want is access to this information so they can manufacture Cisco products that will capitalize on the juggernaut that will be the iPhone sales by selling Cisco "tag-along" products.

Cisco doesn't do ANYTHING that isn't about money. That's how they, and Microsoft, and yes, Apple, got where they are.

You're absolutely right. I like Apple products but this is just too arrogant of them. They've long accused Microsoft of just these tactics. I wish your deal could have been worked out. I've been awaiting a cell phone that can double as your home phone when you are at home for a long time.

I believe this whole thing is frivolous anyway. Cisco is suing to get publicity for their product that know one cares about. This whole thing is futile because Apple could change the name of their iPhone to iFeces and millions of people would STILL purchase one. I know I will.

Interesting that on Monday evening you two super companies had not yet resolved the issue. was i just a case of the final crossing of tees and doting of eyes? odd that if you two were this CLOSE but that by late last night the court papers started flying. hope you two can kiss and make up. love ya both!
cheers

I agree with this commentary from an idealistic standpoint, but I find it highly superficial realistically.

Cisco is somewhat hypocritical to say chase Apple with its iPhone infringment but simply ignore the 5 or so other iPhone products out there on the market. It appears that Cisco is starting to see green in this case because they realize the money that Apple can bring in through the use of Cisco's "trademark". If they are concerned about their trademark, they should be fighting it vigorously like any term that becomes a household name (Band-Aid, Coca-Cola, Aspirin, etc.). If Cisco really believes what they are saying here, they would have filed suit against the other companies that won't bring in the potential profits Apple can.

Further, just as cyber-squatting is questionable as a practice on the internet, trademark-squatting should be viewed similarly. I understand that Cisco holds the trademark for iPhone, but such trademarking raises a question. Why would a company that knows another company creates many "i" products trademark a name they had no intention of releasing a product for for several years. It can be argued that iProducts should hold some clout in trademark law since it demonstrates precedent in the area.

I love Cisco and Apple—both are innovative companies—but neither is correct here. Apple is wrong for announcing the name without holding trademark, but Cisco is just as wrong for being a trademark bully and to an extent a squatter.

Despite the fact that this is the explanation of Cisco and we should here "the other side" before we are judging, it misses maybe the key point: How does it look and feel for the world outside? Despite of "justice" and "law" there is judgement from customers and the public.
How clever has it been to launch an iPhone a couple of weeks before Macworld, if the whole world means another thing by this term already? The jokes on engadget.com tell you more about this. How wise is it to make fools out of a brand like Cisco, which should know better that ownership for a word is less a matter of trademark than "the normative power of the facts". Means that everybody knows i- whatsoever is whether an apple product or a cheap free-rider on Apples success. Period.
So regardles if you win in court or prove god knows what, you have lost already - in the "belly" of the public .

To play devil's advocate (and I am in no way a fanboy of Apple nor do I care that much about the iPhone), choosing the iPhone name considering Apple's considerable investment in products with such names was an incredibly stupid idea.

Having worked in trademark litigation myself in the past, I can see this suit being resolved in Cisco's favor. However, as I previously stated, why would you even register the name?

Excellent! Apple would fight to the death if the roles were reversed so I think you are doing the right thing here.

Bunch of bull. No one is going to use Cisco's iPhone. Consumers don't want it. You shouldn't even try to say that is the case.

Now people, this is what you call good PR!

Marvellous response.

Well written response and it explains all esp. the fact that every one knows how aggressively apple seeks to protect their tradmarks ianyproducttheyown, its only fair that they work with cisco or change they name - i am sure they are lots of othe r synonyms for phone that reflects web acess adn voice telephony

Very well put. Good luck!

It is Steve Jobs' arrogance.

Because we are Apple and we can do anything!

"Let's sue all the little companies that have a slight use of "Pod" in their names"

"But for us, it is ok to use names owned by other people.
Just like "Macintosh" that I christened my computer products and told my Apple staff before I actually got an OK from an audio company called "Mcintosh" "

I am making sure to throw away all my Cisco Products

I understand it all, but Apple can't exactly move Macworld. I hope there's no hard feelings about this and you can work out some monetary settlement. It would be bad press for both of them if they had to change the name.

Look at Motorola and ROKR... they attempted collaborate with Apple but all they got was a phone that was overshadowed by the Nano at launch, was generally poorly reviewed and will now be eclipsed by the Apple phone and forgotten forever while Motorola's in house music service continues to languish.

Clearly, Apple doesn't play well with others.

The only unknown is whether it is because Apple is completely arrogant and impossible to work with or because other companies just don't get the concept of going all out, making a GOOD product, and letting designers and engineers make products without the corrupting influence of marketing people.

I would say it is probably large helpings of both.

I was curious about what was going on with the iphone name because I had read about Cisco's ownership quite a while back. Excellent clarification of the issue, Thanks.

i'm no lawyer, but it seems anyone using the iAnything moniker should be paying homage to apple after the introduction of the iMac a decade ago. i find it hard to believe that the iPhone trademark dates back to 1996, but i trust you did your homework. then again, apple did most/all of the heavy-lifting gettng the iName into the modern vernacular and most/all devices using this iPrefix today are riding the wave of this legacy. i s'pose what it comes down to is: who do you think of when you say iSomething? 30 helens agree: it'd be apple, not cisco. and if cisco keeps the iPhone tradename, they'll be riding the iWave as well, not the on the unknown past of an unknown startup.

Compelling logic and a very reasonable request as a settlement, considering there are plenty of names they could have used for their product.

Go get em Cisco! Apple is doing this same thing with the word "Podcast". Glad to see someone giving them a taste of their own medicine!

I must say, I don't actually find much clarity in this post.

It speaks in very vague terms about some fuzzy things that were sticking points. It does not explain at all what was really being asked.

Clearly, Cisco and Apple are not agreeing. There has to be something substantive here.

"We hoped our products could interoperate in the future."

Did Apple demand that Cisco publicly promise to never hope for interoperability? Of course not. You're free to hope for interoperability.

But your statement is misleading. You didn't just hope that, you hoped that Apple would agree to some specific agreement terms expressing this.

How was this hope expressed in the proposed agreement or public statement? Were you asking Apple to publicly state that they hoped that their Internet-enabled telephone would work properly with Cisco routers, or were you asking for specific technical changes or marketing behaviour?

Were you _hoping_ that Apple and Cisco products would interoperate, or were you _demanding_ that they interoperate in some specific manner?

Were you demanding that Apple support VoIP connections to your back-end systems? Were you demanding that Apple's phone only speak to your back-end systems?

"And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony."

This is a very reasonable thing to want. However, since you haven't clarified _how_ you wanted this done, it's not clear whether what you wanted Apple to do was reasonable or not.

Did you want every Apple ad to mention Cisco's products? Did you want a link to Cisco's products on every Apple page that mentioned the iPhone?

Those would be, I believe, unreasonable requests - but they are within the description you provided for what you wanted.

If you want to be open, be specific. This post sounds like PR spin doctoring. Instead of claiming that Apple won't allow you to have any hopes for the future, please explain what concrete things they won't do.

Go get em Cisco! Apple is doing this same thing with the word "Podcast". Glad to see someone giving them a taste of their own medicine!

Mark, In my opinion you should counsel Cisco to take the higher ground on this one. We can both agree that more benefits exist for Cisco riding on the Apple iPhone name than Apple riding Cisco's name. Cisco Systems is not seen as a consumer facing company. The strengths of Cisco Systems are in enterprise based solutions and the weak attempt at releasing a consumer facing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone three weeks ago is a testament to that.

Respectfully submitted.

Dear fellow commenters.
No. No. No.
You can't trademark a letter. Especially "i". Intel already tried this. "i386" anyone?
I want to know what damage cisco has incurred that it will claim compensation for. Perhaps slader of title? Or maybe they just want an injunction to make apple stop using the iPhone until they own the trademark.

Anyway. Good luck with your case. Apple are clearly in the wrong here, but it'll be interesting to see exactly which wrong.

This just confirms how arrogant Steve Jobs is.

Most Diplomatic. I entirely agree with the views expressed. Laws apart, a company of the stature of Apple should know better not to infringe upon someone else's property. Intellectual or Otherwise. Anyway, I hope Cisco and Apple find an amicable solution.

Thanks for the insight.

Are you able to comment on whether the interoperability deal was exclusive in nature?

If so, then maybe I can see why Apple didn't agree (and hence should have used another brand name for their phone). But otherwise, kudos on taking the open route vs. the walled garden route.

Apple's going to end up changing the name to "ApplePhone" with the Apple Icon appearing in front of the word "Phone" just as they have with "AppleTV."

They just didn't want to confuse the issue at rollout time because the press (and everyone else) has been calling their product iPhone for years. Now that it's out there, they've got 6 months (and 5 months of advertising for AppleTV to switch it over to ApplePhone and be comfortable in the public's mind.

That goes hand-in-hand with dropping Apple Computer, Inc. as their name and replacing it with Apple, Inc. In the future, Apple Computers will be one subset of the company, Apple Phone another, Apple TV another... and, who knows, maybe ApplePod down the road.

Just my 2 cents.

I think most people who have been following this story are actually sympathetic to your plight. It's a shame that Apple couldn't make more of an effort to come to an agreement with you over the use of the iPhone trademark. While I personally disapprove of the way Apple seemingly "bullied" it's way into the use of the name "iPhone", I can also understand their intense desire to name their phone in accordance with the rest of their i-products. I would like to see Apple offer to pay a substantial amount of capital (perhaps in the form of royalties) to share or purchase this name which will add immeasurable sentimental value to a line of products millions of consumers use and enjoy.

Why doesn't cisco go after other products that have the iPhone name.

Seems like Cisco is trying to ride on Apple's coat-tails.

For all of those who post comments like "Apple's/Jobs' arrogance", Apple's comeuppance, etc. please take note of one fact:

Apple's iPhone is the SIXTH phone with that name in the market.

Cisco has only sued ONE for trademark infringement.

Why is this so?

Could someone update me briefly on Trademark law, could'nt Apple just change the name to iphone (Lower case i, lower chase "phone" and be legal. or maybe even i, followed by phon, I thought a trademark had to contain a certain style of lettering ? So normal combinations of english language letters can be registered trademarks ??

Good on Cisco!

Apple is marketing a silly little toy of a phone that is nothing special and you have just given them a taste of reality!

What I found odd to begin with is that Cisco released an iPhone when *everyone knew* that Apple was developing what would very very probably be called the iPhone.

Regardless of trademarks and so on, iPhone was already an Apple product in the public's mind long before Cisco even mentioned anything about their own "iPhone" product.

But whatever, Cisco needs to take their cut and get a piece of the action, because the contrast between Cisco's iPhone and Apple's will be nearly night and day, in terms of market share, profits, and feature set.

Amazing to read this stuff. Both camps. This is the Cisco that couldn't have cared less that spanning tree issues killed AppleTalk and in the early days, made it very difficult to have Apple machines on a network. All of you people were happily singing "Apple is Dead" back in the late 90's. Like some school yard bullies you laughed and called Apple "beleaguered" and "irrelevant" well, like the nerdy kid that grows up Apple is now the big man on campus and you just can't stand it can you. Funny to see the reactions and attitude.

I am in the telecommunications field and have bought and researched many products branded i-something.

Apple does not have any sort of right to "i-names" in general, most people in the technology world know this.

Apple does have every right to keep producing proprietary products. It currently makes them money. But once they run out of interesting products to come out with I think this strategy will backfire. It has before.

Personally, I hope Cisco refuses to let Apple use the name at all. With the money involved I doubt that will happen, but it would serve Apple right.

I see this going both way. Naming their product iPhone despite not owning the trademark keeps consistancy with most of their recent product line. I also think that while Cisco is enforcing their IP rights, that this is also a plug for their iPhone product. I say this because I had never heard of Ciscos iPhone product until I read about this lawsuit. Was Apple wrong, all signs point to yes. However from my point of view this seems like the result of planned negotiation breakdowns for marketing purposes.

I just wanted to compliment your response. i applaud your efforts and support your complaint. Apple does not get to disregard rules as they choose.....and it is my belief that they would have been the first to jump all over someone for using one of their trademarks.

CISCO stop acting like a baby...let Apple use the name. Let them pay you a fee. Your iphone is crap anyway, so any extra advertising of this terrible product is going to make your company look bad.

Regarding the question as to why Cisco has not sued other companies who use the name iPhone...

Is it not possible that said companies came to an agreement with Cisco and/or received permission from Cisco to use the name?

First off - I am a complete Apple user. Apple everything. I got into Apple in part because of MSFT reaching too far in to my life.
But Apple's recent moves remind me of how awful it would have been if they won the PC war in the 80's.
At least MSFT just wants to own all the software. Apple wants the software... the hardware... and now YOUR content that YOU paid for. Apple - why can't I stream iTunes to a stereo using a non-Apple device on my own home network? And now you want me to buy Apple TV? Forget it - I am going to scope out a Linux system and own what I paid for.

Those that bag on Cisco for interoperability forget how their Mac connects to a Sun or MSFT server on the internet using IP... or that Apple wanted to own that too with AppleTalk...I use equipment from a variety of vendors on my home IP network. It all inter-operates just fine... I only have issues with content I purchased from Apple going to a non-Apple device...

Next product from Apple? The iP network. Someone needs to stand up to Apple and demand interoperability.

You don't think it's a case of jumping on the "i" bandwagon and trying to ride it? Why else would someone squat of an iPhone trademark for 6-7 years?

I think McDonals has been pretty successful swatting down the hundreds of McBlank rip-offs that have cropped up over the years?

I agree. If someone launched an IPod operating system, Jobs would sue the hell of out them

rock on!

I'm going to return my VRRP phone asap for infringing on internet rfcs!

A well-stated argument. Regardless of whether the name 'iPhone' originated with Cisco, Inc. or not, Cisco is the legal rights-holder.

Of course, one could make the arguement that interoperability with products that comprise the Apple juggernaut is more valuable than simple money or royalties, so Cisco may indeed have been asking for something very dear (depending on the details of the deal)

Anyway Apple seems to be pushing the envelope with names lately. The Beatles/Apple renegotiation thing, as well as their enthusiasism in sticking the letter "i" in front of everything seems a little tiresome.

I generally like Apple products by the way.

gopi:

"Those would be, I believe, unreasonable requests - but they are within the description you provided for what you wanted."

Cisco owns the trademark. They can offer any agreement they want with Apple, and Apple must agree or not use their mark. There is no such thing as an "unreasonable request" when it comes to your property. The trademark "iPhone" is Cisco's property, and ANY agreement they propose involving its use is completely reasonable because THEY own it and decide how it's used.

You're obviously just an Apple fanboi who is upset that your favorite company doesn't get to stomp on others' rights for free.

I, for one, hope Cisco denies Apple use of the mark to make an example of them. Far too long have companies like Apple acted like hypocrites, protecting their rights defiantly while stomping on everyone else's. Keep the name, Cisco; and let companies know that when they act like assholes they will be punished accordingly.

I call BS. I haven't read about Cisco's vigorous pursuit of trademark over iPhone.com (owned by GoDaddy and created before Infogear's iPhone product in 1996) or iPhone.org (created in 1999 and pointed to apple.com). Has Cisco not done the basic things that every has-been washed up actor has done already: protected their mindshare with disputes to ICANN?

Cisco is looking to capitalize on someone else's buzz. Pushing out iPhone-labeled hardware not a month before Apple's widely-rumored announcement smacks of a planned self-victimization in order to better convince a judge and jury of real damages. Cisco might win such a lawsuit based on their ownership of the name, or they might lose since they were obviously unconcerned with other usurpers and could be said to have had no interest in their iPhone trademark.

Whatever. The truth is, people are talking about Cisco now, and there's no such thing as bad pub.

Well, I find the lawsuit to be silly but great marketing for a product that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Kudos on the media coup, but in the long run it will highlight that Cisco is truly an Enterprise company. In the Enterprise market you have commoditized products, vicious competition and buyers who normally don't function well outside of a lab. Cisco NETWORKERS is a great vehicle for them, but selling a device into someone's home or back pocket is different.

So, a different sensibilty and DNA is required. Frankly, I think that most folks are scared of Cisco trying to branch into the Consumer market from a quality perspective. You can't buy quality...only technology. Enterprise grade is very different from Consumer grade.

Also, Cisco has made BOLD legal moves against innovators in the past(companies and individuals), such as the fiasco at BlackHat a few years ago. That one only backfired... a famous researcher went over to Juniper, and the hacker community further exploited Cisco security vulnerablities. Net Result: Cisco's $830 million purchase of a security company to fill one of at least 4 major areas of security that the company is lacking in.

I have worked in the trenches of marketing at Cisco, and competed with and beaten it at various startups also. Made some money off of them by just ignoring and focusing.

These next couple of years will interesting, but I am not really worried about it. Just focusing. True innovation and quality will always win the day...

Cisco, you may get paid, but your phone will also get steamrolled.

Good luck on the whole "phone" thing...you've already lost.

People around the world know Apples' iPhone, yet they, most likely, have never heard of yours....

Very well said Mark Chandler, and Cisco. I too am a fan of Apple products, however, their behavior and attitude has made me think twice as a consumer. What Apple did was flat out WRONG. Trademarks are trademarks. Period. I'm rooting for you all the way Cisco!!!

Cisco has not defended its iPhone brand in the past, there are several other companies referring to their VoIP-products as "iPhone". I believe you will lose the brand in court, and that Apple is right to challenge your brand.

However, if you had defended the trademark properly in the past, the situation would be quite different.

Cisco Note: We have defended our iPhone Trademark in the past, prior to the Apple issue.

Apple would sue if someone else used iPod, iTunes, iMac, etc. You were right in protecting your trademark. I can understand that an iPhone was the most logical route to go for Apple, but they should have worked out the trademark issue with Cisco first, regardless of how Apple-like iPhone. It isn't Apple's trademark.

While technically, Cisco is in the right, to claim that they are doe-eyed innocents in this matter is ridiculous.

1) Why did Cisco name their phone the iPhone? Easy - it's because they hope to capitalize on the name cachet that Apple has spent years - and millions of dollars - in cultivating. If the iPhone trademark was so valuable for you, why'd you discontinue the product once you bought Netgear? Oh sure, you shipped and supported it. But you didn't invest a cent in creating new models or advertising your current models until you could ride off Apple's investment in the iWhatever suite of products. Plus you let several other companies - none of them even close to Apple's size - use the iPhone name!!

2) As you state yourself, you've discussed the rights to the name for the past 5 years. You KNEW that Apple wanted to make this product. As you state yourself, you didn't ask for money, nor royalties, nor for Apple to contract out Cisco for services. No, as another poster stated earlier, you wanted IN. You wanted to be a part of the Apple fraternity, and you thought you could wield the iPhone trademark over Jobs' head like a Sword of Damocles.

Hell, I'll bet you rushed your product to market and slapped the iPhone name on it PRECISELY because you read the WSJ and said, "hey, we own the iPhone trademark, we could screw with Apple because they refused to work with us."

Well, now Steve called you on it.

You may be right in a court of law, but what you are doing is quite frankly underhanded.

You have been talking with Apple about this since 2001. Sounds to me like you have been holding out for SIX YEARS. For what? Hmmmm.

Cisco IP-Phone I know. Cisco iphone product please. Have they really been around for six years? I hope Apple changes the name to Apple Phone or iCellPhone or whatever. Apple coined iNoun. Others lack enough creativity to create their own brand so they squat on iNoun until Apple has to ask to buy it. Reminds me of domain name squaters. nissan.com anyone? Maybe the problem is the system?

Supports Cisco all the way!!!
Apple is crooks, they violate trademark laws.

they don't let people use ipod in anyways....

anyway, supports Cisco.

You may own the rights to the IPhone name....But ur IPhone sucks...The Apple IPhone has so much more then the pi of crap you're trying to sell...even if you win the case Apple has a better product then u ever will.

Great blog post. I hope Apple takes notice of support you are getting.

Steve will PWN you.

As stated above, apple owns the iPhone trademark in what, 10+ other countries? They may have legal ground on that alone to beat Cisco.

Then we'll get into Cisco's 'openness' and 'willingness' to work with Apple. Apple does not need you. I agree with most that you were trying to piggieback their success.

To those who say Steve Jobs is arrogant. Hell yeah, and rightfully so.

I am writing this from an Apple MacBook Pro - but I fully support you in being so open and honest about the trademark misuse for iPhone. Apple's position is wrong - and hopefully they will come to an agreement, or if not, that this lawsuit resolves the issue.

When Apple first used the "i" for a product [the first cancy colored iMacs] the letter stood for Internet. The first iMac was "internet ready." The new Apple iPhone is again an internet ready device. The Cisco phone uses internet telephony, but doesn't seem to be a browser. And wasn't the original trademark Cisco inherited "iPhonenetworks" and not iPhone?

For those who aren't that familiar with trademark law, the basic principal is to ensure that one product isn't mistaken for another.

For example, Apple could take action if you tried to create a music player with a name that was very similar to "iPod". However, if you designed a ski container for a car's roof and called it a "skiPod", you would probably get away with it.

Note that owning a trademark doesn't give you complete rights over the trademark. Competitors can happily mention that trademark. The trademark simply prevents ambiguous naming of products.

You certainly do have to question Cisco's timing of bring the iPhone label into use again. However, as the trademark owners, they have every right to do so. They have the rights to the trademark, and may choose to bring it into use at almost any time they like.

As for the people who say that Cisco should just sign over the name, you're only seeing a small part of the picture. Apple may have the trademark registered in a large number of countries, but not in all countries. Cisco own the trademark in the USA. Another company has it in Japan (as mentioned in another post). Apple don't get instant worldwide rights because of some sort of "majority rule".

I certainly hope that Cisco hold onto the iPhone name and don't let Apple use it. If Cisco gives in, then the other iPhone trademark holders around the world have no chance.

Apple sues for every small thing that carries thier brand name in this world. They did'nt even left small tools like juice until they change thier name from iPodder. Good job cisco !

I applaud Cisco for responding to this via blog post. A very open, thoughtful response like this goes a long way.

But I too echo the concerns left by others about the history of the "iWord" approach to product naming. This is Apple's territory, and Cisco's intent smacks of co-opting another brand's style.

I think of it like this: McDonald's hasn't trademarked the term "McFalafel" yet. But that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make it okay for me or anyone to lay trademark claim on that term and sit on it for years.

The same is true with the "iName" naming convention. This is Apple's thing, at least in the consumer's mind. Cisco can try to play ignorant, and point out that the exact letters I-P-H-O-N-E weren't trademarked yet, but that's just silly. If the issue is about causing consumer confusion in the marketplace, I would argue that Cisco, not Apple, is at fault and has been for years.

(And yes, I recognize that current trademark law doesn't support naming conventions as much as it supports exact matches...)

Good for you!

It annoys me that they think they're so big, they can just do whatever they want.

Well, Cisco will NOT be bullied! And the lawsuit proves it. They need to respect other companies and not assume the world revolves around them. :)

@Justin:
'Cisco owns the trademark. They can offer any agreement they want with Apple, and Apple must agree or not use their mark. There is no such thing as an "unreasonable request" when it comes to your property. The trademark "iPhone" is Cisco's property, and ANY agreement they propose involving its use is completely reasonable because THEY own it and decide how it's used.'

That's a ridiculous position to take. Yes, there is such a thing as an unreasonable request. If the local Ford dealer decides to start charging $10m per car, that is unreasonable. That doesn't mean you can go in and take the car and leave behind $20k or whatever you think it's worth. It's very common to have the right to be unreasonable.

Cisco has every right to be unreasonable since it is their trademark. I'm only arguing against their spin, because they issued a public statement that was highly misleading.

"You're obviously just an Apple fanboi who is upset that your favorite company doesn't get to stomp on others' rights for free."

Obviously. Name calling is easier than actually arguing the issues.

The entire point of this item from Cisco was to claim that Cisco's demands were reasonable. Cisco seems to feel the need to portray their requests as reasonable. I'm just trying to cut through the marketing spin and get out what the truth is.

I would have been more impressed with Cisco if you had kept negotiating instead of suing with in 12 hours.

Now you just look angry and unprofessional.

Apple's back was to the wall and you come off to me as kicking them rather than working with them as you claim. If you were truly committed to the negotiations now is the time to prove it.

Cisco has not defended the iPhone name enough. Cisco did not object when Time Magazine, The WSJ, The NYT, USA Today, scores of other publications, and hundreds of bloggers used the word iPhone when referring to an Apple product - time and time again over a period of years.

Apple's use of the term iPhone will NOT cause confusion in the marketplace, because consumers ALREADY think the iPhone IS the Apple product. They thought that even before Apple used the term iPhone for the first time.

Kimberly-Clark did not protect their trademarks; Coca-Cola did. Now Apple is calling there iPhone the Apple iPhone, and can argue that the common use of iPhone does not refer to your products.

- The "i" prefix thing will ALWAYS relay to Apple products for consumers.

- Others iPhone on the market and never prosecute them, until Apple's???

- Apple approached you about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001????

Why didn't you just said NO the first time. Six years of planning to sue Apple, Mmmmm?

I think Cisco (and other interests) wanted to attracted Apple in an ambush. Boy, this is a (busyness) jungle!

This is clearly not about Trademarking or IP, this is about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Apple is now trying to bully a company which is much larger and has much deeper pockets. It's worked for them against much smaller companies but this time they've picked the wrong fight.

Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. Period, end-of-story.

You can make all the emotional comments you'd like but the law is the law.

The only comment from Apple is that the lawsuit is "silly". It's not, so work with Cisco or abandon the name. It's really that simple.

Thanks Cisco for being open and fighting the good fight.

Peace out.

-iDude (tm)

Bravo for allowing all sides of the debate on your blog. Nothing says 'openness' like hosting your critics.

Funny. The iMac trademark was filed for on March 8th, 1993. Check the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's fully searchable on the web. So Cisco's claim that the iPhone trademark is 1996, "before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple's eye." is a bunch of hooey. I'd say the iMac was a glimmer in Apple's eye prior to 1993.

I call bullshit.

Cisco should defend it's trademark, and reading all the pro-apple comments on this blog makes me believe that they were all written by 13-16 year old 733n5.

This phone was named by speculators because of Apple's use of the "iName." It was assumed by consensus the Apple phone would be called this. Apple appears to have tried to resolve this and gave it's audience what is wanted.

To wit "I doubt Linksys minds that their choice of name for this line of phones has solidly collided with the incessantly growing rumors around a possible phone from Apple." -VoIP Week in Review, http://www.tmcnet.com/news/2006/12/22/2192698.htm

Apple appears to have opened dialog about the name of this product with Cisco. Cisco seems to wanted to share the trademark if Apple was willing to comply to share proprietary technology that Apple is using to create this phone offering Cisco a technological edge in their market. Cisco appears to have tried to leverage the use of the name to their advantage. My bet is that Apple was willing to pay handsomely for the use of the name, given that they have already set precedent in prefixing their products with the "i." Cisco most likely turned down favorable terms because Apple refused to budge on the technology issue and accurately did not confuse trademark with copyright/patent. Apple, has in fact set a recognizable standard in naming their products this way, starting with the iMac. The real rub is that while Cisco has the name, the public/press has also set the standard by referring to this phone as the "iPhone." Think "Kleenex." If the word is continued to be used by the public even though Apple names it MacPhone or iFone, Cisco could lose the name.

I can see the trademark issue, but I think Apple could beat this because of the bigger issue at hand, the "iName" use set a standard in consumers minds as being Apple products. People that know Apple know the "i" means "internet" (iMac, iLife, iWork, iPhoto). Cisco was foolish to try and capitalize on this name. Apple is not after companys who name fedora hats "iHat."

Cisco is heavily lawyering up under the guise of trademark to force Apple to share technology. Apple can walk away from this name and Cisco incurs no damages. The product has not been released, until recently nobody ever heard of or cared for the Cisco iPhone.

Nobody is buying the Cisco iPhone. I bet the majority of Cisco employees don't use a Cisco iPhone. Get the point? How could the genral public confused the trademark with a product the majority of people have never heard of? Nobody was eagerly awaiting the Cisco product, but the Industry was waiting for the Apple product.

I get the tradmark thing but squatting on it to leverage Apple wasn't very bright. Yours is a Cordless VOIP phone, theirs is a cell phone+. I think Cisco turned this into an issue they could have benefitted from.

Beiside "Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone", Today’s iPhone is not yesterday’s iPhone too.

CYW

All the apple nerds here act like apple owns "i" I(

They are charging $499 and $599 for the dang thing so why not hit 'em with a $100 per unit license fee. Get crazy on them!

It's completely appropriate that Cicso protect its trademark. I agree that Apple is far more aggressive when it comes to their trademarks and rightfully so, they always have the hot products and surely want to control and protect their identity as much as possible. They truth is they actually both win here. I think the negotiations just didn't get finalized in time before MacWorld and they had to run with it and deal with Cisco's reaction later. No matter, they both win:

1) Not too many people have heard of the iPhone from Cisco. Cisco wins here because more people will be drawn to their product and want to know what their iPhone is all about. They will probably get a nice bump in sales until the name dispute is settled.

2) Apple is the one in a no lose situation here. The courts might actually allow them to use the name, unlikely though. If that's the case it's basically a bonus for them and great they get to use iPhone. If the courts rule against them then oh well, they're where they were in the beginning and they can call it the ApplePhone. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained for Apple". The litigation fees are not anything of consequence in the end.

Think about this. Jobs called it "iTV" before it's official launch Tuesday and now officially they call it the "Apple Logo + TV" and they could easily do that for this phone at official launch date. Why not just have it Apple logo + phone as well? People would call it the Apple Phone. Simple enough and they'll go that route I'm sure after the lawsuit.

Everybody on the planet has heard of an iPod so of course they want to be able to use iPhone. They've got the iPod, iTunes, iPhoto, iMac, iLife, iWork, etc. If they can use it great, that's a bonus and if not no big deal, they'll add their logo in front of phone, like they did with the iTV.

APPLE WINS BIG HERE. Think of the 6 months of build up leading up to the "Apple Phone" and they get to milk the media for all it's worth for free! Look at how they dominated the media up to MacWorld. People nearly forgot about the CES show this week in Vegas, which is the tech industry's biggest show. The media is their puppet and they are the masters of the strings. Remember, that even bad press like this sells products because it brings more people to the stores to see what all the talk is about. The financial consequences of Apple infringing on the name iPhone, especially a product that is not even out yet is going to be marginal compared to the amount of attention and buzz the lawsuit creates. The media attention is 1,000x more valuable than the name.

The bottom line is that Apple has innovated a remarkable product in it's phone and the bar has been raised up a couple notches. Even if you don't like the fact that they are pushing their weight and popularity around a little with this dispute, they still are true innovaters and have great products. People that don't like Apple for this reason forget that's exactly what Microsoft has done for years and years. That's just the way the game has to be played in this cut throat tech industry.

I'm very excited that OSX will be running the phone because it's such an innovative and powerful platform. I can't wait to get one, despite what they call it! They could call it the Zunerino and I'd still buy it!

What would happen if they just renamed it the "Apple iPhone" would that still be a violation of copyright?

iPhone has been inexorably linked to Apple in the minds of the public and press of the world for years, and this has happened without the use of the word on Apple's part. Why do you think the Linksys product launch last month generated news and was the butt of jokes all over the world? "The iPhone has been released!" was big news, and the punch-line was that it had nothing to do with Apple.

Cisco claims good faith negotiations, but then dons an obtusity hat in refusing to understand how a Macworld keynote can't just be put off for a few more hours or days in order to wait for whatever concessions Cisco was holding out for. If you were truly close to reaching a deal, understanding that an event that has been planned for a year still has to go forward does not seem an unreasonable expectation. After all, 4000 attendees and the press corps can't be simply re-scheduled at the last minute. Not to mention the planning and rehearsal that goes into making such a launch an Apple-level success to begin with.

The right thing to do would have been to pick up where you left off and finish the negotiations. If anything, you are in more of a position of power since they have publicly committed to using the name in the final product.

Taking this action can do nothing but sour the relationship. You know "world + dog" have been waiting for this from Apple. So please, work it out.

This comment forum is doing a great job at showing how different personalities (jurors) will immediately react to Cisco's plea in court. Once further logical discussions are had, however, I believe most of the sympathizers will concede to the arguments being presented by some of the Apple apologists. In comparing the evidence from the source blog entry and both camps, I am most impressed by what's coming out of the pro-Apple 'side'. It seems reasonable that a decent lawyer working for Apple will take it case far beyond those comments, which would likely win over the jury. I agree that this lawsuit will end up providing Cisco nothing substantial beyond publicity. Apple will change their product's name or win the suit.

Apple is a lamer that thinks that they are god in the computer/multimedia industry. if they would get over their ego, they might survive.

Of-course, Cicso say it's not about money as if they wouldn't benefit tremendously finanically from some sort of intergration with the iPhone. Maybe this is all a front. Maybe their demands at the time of 'expecting closure' were actually deliberately quite unreasonable just to spite Apple and then sue them had they dare use the brand name the next day (knowing that the iPhone name would be posted all over Apple posters, presentations and of-course the phone itself).

It's amazing that APPLE dropped the attempt to reach a trademark-permission deal with Cisco at the final moment. Looks they lost the control of their mind.

CYW

You guys are hilarious... It's like the two camps are bracing up for war.

For one, It doesn't matter if 100% of this thing was designed outside Cupertino... Apple owns it...

Secondly, Cisco obviously has Apple believing that the negotiations were as good as done. Multi-billion dollar companies don't throw around names and such without doing research...

Oh, and I forgot who posted... but Steve was one of the original computer revolution founders... do your research, or at least go watch a movie version of it like "Pirates of Silicon Valley"... "His Steveness" knows what he's doing, whether you like it or not. It'll cost him some money sometimes, but he knows what he's doing...

I just lost a lot of respect for Cisco, and will be moving any networking equipment that I purchase for personal use or work to 3Com or another company. Way to mislead people Cisco...

The bar has been raised Cisco, Motorola, Nokia, RIM, and all you other cell phone/device companies... Time to catch up...

Oddly enough, I'm listening to my iPod as I type this on a Windows machine...

How is Cisco not infringing or diluting any number of apple trademarks? imac, ibook, ipod, itunes, iwork, ilife. ithink I see a far more developed brand identity then what Cisco could even possibly have. Back in the day if you were sitting on that trademark, and that trademark happened to be a domain name you'd be nothing but a common cyber-squatter. Common just common. I think the reason Apple has gone ahead with launching the iPhone (and been so arrogant in the process) is because they have probably considered this question with legal, and concluded that they have a pretty nice infringement and or dilution claim against Cisco vis a vis a good chunk of their entire product line.

Interesting and Cisco has a point - they also have a product wholly UNLIKE Apple's product. The Cisco IPhone isn't even a mobile device. Yes it is a multi function device, but its STILL just a desktop phone. I would have to belive that some sort of agreement can be reached between the two companies.

Sure, Cisco can go for the throat with Apple, but why not make things mutally beneficial instead? Allow both companies use of the name and benefit both companies?

Or just sue the pants off Apple and give them even more publicity and make Cisco look bad to all the fanboys and girls....

I just wanted to mention that law is reasonless. It seems like most of the pro-apple people seem to think a jury will decide if Cisco or Apple get to use the 'iphone' name.

The truth is the judge will say this:

Judge: Who owns the trademark to iPhone?
Cisco: We do.
Judge: Cisco owns the names trademark and therefore anyone other than Cisco using it is in violation of trademark law.

What I'm saying is that its black and white. The court and the judge don't care if apple has tagged the letter "i" in front of all their product names. Unless they own the trademark they have no grounds for argument. Otherwise all law is liquid and can be changed by emotion, which in the case of law - law is reasonless. There is no reasoning your way around a black and white lawsuit. The owner has the rights the non-owner has no rights. Period.

Steve jobs not even mentioned about the dispute on the iphone trademark during the announcement of 'iphone'. Isn't this his arrogance or what ?

Cisco is in the consumer market

* In the summer Cisco changed their logo to help it get into the consumer market

* $500 million to acquire the Linksys

* $7.0 billion cash for Scientific-Atlanta

* $61 million in cash and stock for KiSS Technology

If Cisco is not in the consumer market, who is?

Just one more thing, Cisco has sold more IP Phones anybody eles, plus if you want to say who has the most sexy ip phone.. Just look at 7971 which is on TV shows like "24". Also leads the way in open protocols like SIP & H.323.

I think the name is in the Public Domain. Apple did not name this product, the public & media named it. Apple "adopted" the name. Cisco decided to put a lame product out at the last moment and call it a "iPhone".

The public will never accept a product from anyone else but Apple if it is called "iPhone".

Cisco, do the right thing, let Apple & the public have it's "iPhone".

It is ironic that Apple just WANT to use its publicity to violate the law. Let's see whether there will have justice.

But what does the "i" stand for? Internet? Does Apple really have a stronger claim to Internet products than Cisco?

It absolutely amazes me the amount of vitriolic commentary posted on this blog by the pro-Apple crowd. For being "hip", they sure seem to have a poor attitude and even worse ethics. I understand Apple is kewl, but THEFT is definitely NOT KEWL.

Here's the fact: Apple didn't get what they wanted so they took it.

What is right about that?

Get a clue and a grip. Apple screwed up here and I hope they learn from their mistake.

This is all a case of corporate greed on both sides. Both Apple and Cisco should be ashamed of themselves.

Apple should have picked a different name when it became apparent that Cisco was not going to sell them the trademark. That said Cisco seems really disingenuous in this situation as they say they wanted to be open in the situation and utilized all of the free publicity over the last several months in regards to the iPhone to push inaccurate information out to the various media outlets and blogs so they could capatilize on the mindshare of a product being developed by a different company.

My guess is that Linksys was releasing a VOIP phone in December and Cisco hoped to garner the buzz Apple was building. It was about the poorest kept secret in Silicon Valley that Apple was working on a phone after all. Cisco would come off a lot better if they would simply acknowledge that they wanted more money than Apple was willing to pay. I am glad I sold my shares in Cisco recently as they are certainly not looking out for their shareholders if they are not looking to monetize a possible relationship like that.

In regards to trademarks. Trademarks are frequently given for the same name in different industries as long as they can't be confused for each other. Cisco makes networking equipment and VOIP phone systems, Apple makes Computers and Consumer Electronics, nobody is going to mistake the industrial design of cisco for the elegant design of Apple. Cisco is also NOT the only company with a trademark on the term iPhone. I found three other iPhone trademarks at uspto.gov. In fact the company referenced in the link I am posting below looks like it might have a whole lot more to say than Cisco does. Hell their font even looks an aweful lot like something Apple would use.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=gf2tvi.2.4

While Cisco is doing the right thing by suing Apple it is not for the reason that Apple did something wrong. if Cisco did not protect their trademark it would be invalidated. The reality of the matter is that Cisco probably wanted to some out of this world amount of money and Apple probablky wanted to give them two pennies. The likelihood is that the number that the courts decide on will be somewhere in the middle and Cisco will likely capatilize on a name they possibly never had any intention of using.

I hope the courts read your blog and decide that your case has merit but that since you don't want money then Apple can just have name.

Lawsuit in regards to trademark infringement = $
As usual lawyers will be the only winners, not the consumers or the shareholders for either of these companies.

Jordan Winkelman
and yes I really like Apple product, however I work with Cisco gear everyday.

Maybe those who are taking the side of Apple (when legally they are clearly in the wrong, no matter how many "i" products they've sold before) would do well to do a little searching into Apple Corps, the company that owns the Apple trademark, and only allowed Apple the computer company to use the trademark on the legally binding arrangement that they would use the name only for computers, and not enter the music or entertainment business.

The iPOD is a clear violation of that agreement and Apple Corps has sued Apple over their use. The iPhone is just another example of how Apple and Jobs seems to think they are too important to be held to the rules that others follow.

Apple's phone is VAPORWARE. It's not even going to ship until June, assuming it passes FCC and no manufacturing glitches.

Apple fanboys- step away from the reality distortion field. It's affecting your ability to think differently.

If Cisco is being so open and transparent about all this crap going on with Apple,why not post the latest written agreement they had,and really put ther cards on the table,and then we can all really see if it wasnt about more money,or Cisco getting na piece of every Iphone sold...etc...
I trust this Blog as much as I trust Apple,0 nada.nil... I know I'll be going out of my way to not buy Cisco products when and if I can...

Qoute:

Cute story, fictional, but cute. I applaud your humanitarianism but please give us a break. There is no way Apple is going to carry your cheesy silver plastic low-end skype phone along on a multi billion dollar ride.

I'm quite sure Apple made an offer in monetary terms which would well compensate Cisco for any product revenue but you and I both know that tagging on the back of the biggest product announcement of the year is worth far more than that.

I know you didn't know what the product was or what it did or how it did it, even Apple's actual partners didn't until the launch. You shoved a piece of junk out the door weeks before the Apple launch to establish claim to an otherwise dormant trademark and provide a basis for damages in an eventual suit. How's that selling by the way?

I'm sure you legal types will work out fair compensation, as an AAPL and CSCO shareholder I expect as much, but please don't blow smoke up my rear end about your altruistic aims in the interim.

End Qoute...

The above,this best post of the bunch...

What's innovative about a cellular phone? Such hype over a multi-purpose device that will not perform as well as existing products on the market. You go, Cisco. Apple needs a wakeup call.

Well, whatever 'i' might stand for, whatever Apple's popular product line is known as; one has to abide by the law. USPTO has granted 'iPhone' name to Cisco and that's it. Cisco has sole rights. Who cares what the motives behind the actions of each are?
You ask, then negotiate and out of the blue just announce it one day? This is not like 'Beg, Borrow or Steal'.

OPEN IS GOOD!

Thank you CISCO for taking the high road here!

Isn't it amazing the xxxx you can see from up here on the high road?

;-}

Apple should just name it "iFone" and the problem will be solved.

Cisco, you're simply wasting internet bandwidth and the courts time in pushing your trademark ownership for a product line that no one associates with Cisco anyway.

It seems to me the easy solution is to simply move away from using the name "iphone" and substitute something else -- like "ipod phone" since that is really what they're trying to market.

At this point there are no damages since they haven't actually shipped anything.

That would avoid having to haggle over differentiation or network sharing. Really, it's a money issue and I don't think they need to share their network.

Why would they?

It's just a trademark and it costs about $500 to go come up with a new one. No offense, but paying through the nose (whether in cash or shared network) for a trademark that arguably isn't worth that much to Cisco just doesn't make sense.

I know Cisco may view the "iphone" trademark as priceless, but apart from this litigation most people had no idea a netgear "iphone" existed. In other words, the likelihood of confusion only benefits you -- since 99.9% of the people had never heard of the netgear iphone.

There is no way in God's green earth I would share a trademark with Cisco based on that basis alone. It's like Microsoft negotiating with Cisco for shared use of Xbox in a world where nobody has heard of Cisco's Xbox.

Why invest millions in marketing so that you can free ride on their marketing? They might be crazy, but are they that crazy?

So it's not that priceless.

Jobs just needs to abandon "iphone" and move on. The lesson here is some battles just aren't worth fighting.

Unless you're willing to simply sell the entire rights for a cash price without any other mumbo jumbo attached.

That would be the only way I'd deal with you on the trademark. Anything else is Cisco over playing their hand. That said, I still can't figure out why Apple would announce it as the "iphone".

Whoever heads of their legal department made a very big blunder.

I have liked Cisco as a company and loved their products for years, even completing the Cisco CCNA program. A note like this regarding the issue at hand comes as no surprise to me coming from a company with a longstanding history of doing things the right way.

Kudos to Cisco for trying to make it work without demanding money. That's the kind of thing I've learned to expect.

Apple's just doing whatever it wants and thinks it can trample over the law because it's Apple. Stick it to 'em, Cisco. They deserve to pay for such blatant disrespect and disregard for the courtesy that has been given.

Hey guys, what are we doing here? Don't you realize that we're just talking about Apple's and CISCO Products for hours and days??? And the world will do the same! Finally, isn't this an underneath "arrangement" between Apple and CISCO: a kind of marketing strategy based on a possible foney law suit??

I'm just skeptical when big shots tells me to go here or think that.

I don't have the impression, Cisco doesn't want money. Cisco didn't bring out an iPhone the whole time that they now have the rights on the name. There should be a law that reads: if you don't use the rights for a name within 2 years, you lose the rights for it. This is all just the old thing: get as much rights for anything so you can sue someone, if he intends to use these rights. Poor Cisco - I had a better image of this company so far.. :-(

Way to go! Cisco. Very well explained.

No one is invincible, the moment it gets to the mind, be warned, it is the beginning of their destruction, be it individuals, companies or countries.(History has numerous examples)

"Today’s announcement from Cisco regarding our suit with Apple over our iPhone trademark has spurred a lot of interesting questions. Most importantly, this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties."

Yea right. You're gonna tell me Cisco isn't doing this for the money? Or Cisco just happend to launch a phone a month before Apple does? This is a bunch of garbage that anyone with half a brain can see right through. I can't wait to see Apple slaughter you guys in court.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't Apple sue everyone and their dog who had the word pod in their name as if they owned the word pod? In my opinion I hope Apple has this suit crammed down their throat so hard they choke on it if only for the reason of what goes around comes around. If Apple wants to be petty and litigious I think other companies should treat it the same way:) I'm so sick of Apple pretending they're better than everyone else. I love humble people and humble companies. Nuff said

Fair or not, hostile actions towards Apple will be regarded as hostile actions towards Apple fans everywhere.

What your rubes fail to see is that this phone is going to be called the iPhone by consumers whether you like it or not. You see Apple has this little nomenclature thing going on with their products. They use the letter 'i' a lot. Regardless of the fact that your cause is noble or no pun intended, 'i'gnoble you're going to lose on this one. It's the iPhone, 'nuff said.

BTW I'd never heard of your company until now. The only Cisco I've known had the moniker kid attached to it. As in, "Was a friend of mine."

Apple (ehem...that means Steve Jobs) is being extremely arrogant launching a new product without having rights to its name.

If I owned Cisco, I would sue them and sue them blind. But Apple is lucky. It's run by an arrogant , all-flair, little-substance man, but here's Cisco still playing fair and being a nice guy. They are still willing to come to an agreement with Apple on name-sharing. Clearly, Apple is the bad guy here. We know Apple's legal team actively goes after anyone who tries to use the name iPod with any product that's similary to theirs.

It's time Apple learned that this is a double-edged sword. Apple needs to learn that there's no 2 sets of rules for trademark infringement, it's not one rule for Apple, and another rule for the rest of the country.

If they infringe, they must be sued. And the odds , and trademark laws and previous cases are on Cisco's side.

Cisco ain't event asking for money or royalties!!! They just want interoperability! How truly arrogant of Apple to not agree to such a simple request and still...STILL...try and STEAL the trademark without a signed agreement.

Apple better settle...coz if they don't, they better be prepared to come up with a new name for their product. I would like to suggest this new name to Steve Jobs: iSCREWEDUP.

Don't let the Cisco blog fool you, it's ONLY about the PR.

Think Donald and Rosie.

Without a respect for the law we have chaos, tradmark laws give companies a chance to develop innovative ideas in a level playing field. What Apple did was wrong. I hope the company sees sense and comes to an agreement with Cisco.

Cisco OWNS this trademark. I say they can ask whatever price they want for it to someone who wants to use it.

Personally, if I owned it, I'd ask for a BILLION dollars. But I don't. Too bad.

Cisco owns it and they are asking for interoperability. That might mean $$$ for their company in the future eventually. But hey, that's what business is all about. I say Apple better pay this price if they want to use "iPhone" as a brandname, or else go and come up with another name!

While Apple may have a family of "i+[SOME_NAME]" products...it does not and CANNOT own the small letter "i". That firmly belongs to the alphabet. And the alphabet belongs to all. Apple should go find another name if it can't meet Cisco's demands.

My concern for the Cisco suit is the potential counter by Apple that they will apply for an expungement of the trademark on the basis that it has not been widley commercially used by Cisco.

I am vindicated again. One more reason to feel good about the fact that I have NEVER purchased an Apple product in my life (no I dont have an iPod and I still do manage to listen to very good music all the time).

If Miscrosoft tries to wipe out Netscape by tagging on IE, then they are the ultimate monopolist villains to be dragged through a million lawsuits.

When Apple sets out to destroy all other music players as well as formats with the iTunes/iPod combo and aims to become the most shameless (and rip-off) monopolist, its cool.

When other corporate types fool around with the accounting books, it is high crime.

When Steve Jobs backdates options, its obviously the right thing to do.

When other people need to use a trademark, they sit, negotiate and pay.

When Apple needs to do so, they just go ahead and use it!

Their arrogance is appalling! It was not the same as many other cases where the company did not even know about the existence of the trademark (eg Blackberry). Apple was fully aware of the trademark, obviously knew the importance of it - as evidenced by the fact that they were negotiating. However, when they didnt like the price, they went ahead and used the trademark anyway. Disgusting indeed.

And to all those who are so excited about this phone, happy talking on probably the worst network in this country on a phone without 3G and with limited and fixed memory. Oh wait, it also costs $600!

That is until a year from now when they will lauch the same phone with slightly higher memory and charge $700. Pay fools. I owe Apple stock and will gladly pocket your money :)

Let me see: iTV by Apple. iTv is a brand? No but AppleiTV is a big brand!. AppleiPhone? works for me. Plus Apple has trademark that name in Europe and in Australia and who knows where else? maybe even in Canada. iPhone.com... gee i wonder who will by that domain!

I'm surprised that anyone who's used Apple products is surprised by Apple's behavior here. Acting as though the opinions, rights, and even existence of others is beneath contempt is classic Apple.

While Apple may have dropped "Computer" from their name, saying "The first 30 years were only the beginning," today's online Wall Street Journal indicates this attitude is one of the things Apple has chosen to carry forward: "Apple spokesman Steve Dowling called the Cisco lawsuit 'silly.'"

For those new to this idea, simply search the web for "Steve Jobs" and "asshole." To quote one of the more than 100,000 responses this search generates, at an Apple ex-employee reunion, attended by far more than 1,000 former Apple employees including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, one person said it this way: "Everyone has their Steve-Jobs-the-asshole story."

In a way, Apple and Microsoft are exactly alike. Microsoft ruthlessly kills competitors by internally painting them as a threat to be feared if they are allowed to exist. Apple kills competitors just as ruthlessly (limited in their actions only by their smaller market share, not by their nature), but by painting them as so insignificant compared to Apple as to not or not deserve to exist.

But what I find surprising in the comments here is how much additional evidence the "everybody knows that by now Apple owns the letter i" pro-Apple vitriol gives to the claim that Cisco is damaged by Apple's behavior. To the extent that people might state that "I won't buy anymore products from Cisco," that's incredibly damaging to Apple, in that it clearly indicates the damage to corporate reputation that Cisco has already incurred through Apple's actions.

Compensation for those kinds of damages might well be far more economically costly than any licensing fee Apple might have had to pay.

(Footnote: Apple's behavior in the Apple Corps. case might be telling here. Used someone else's mark knowingly, paid a fine and agreed not to use it in certain markets, used it again anyway when it suited them, made enough money that paying the cost to settle the suit will be less than what was made by violating the agreement. I was reasonably close to people in both those negotiations, and I don't recall Apple ever indicating they'd ever felt they'd done anything wrong, even the second time around.)