Taking Umbrage With WSJ’s Holman Jenkins Over iPhone Column
The old adage in communications is never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. However, there isn’t an equal adage for 1’s and 0’s, so, hence, as Cisco invented the router and the network which is the platform for all current communications, I think it is appropriate to respond to Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins on this Cisco blog. (Note: please read this blog’s disclaimer…I am clearly speaking for myself here.)
He wrote a column last week (January 17th) entitled “iFoodfight” about the iPhone trademark and Cisco’s suit against Apple. If you have a WSJ subscription, you can read it online here. He’s a good writer and a good columnist, but I had to wait a few days to respond so I could calm down in response to this one. Here is what I would write him:
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Your piece on the iPhone (“iFoodfight,” January 17, 2007) issue deserves comment. First, you write an opinion piece, so you are entitled to say what you want. However, to suggest that one should “love” a company for using a trademark that is owned by someone else is, to use Apple’s own words to respond to our lawsuit, “silly.” In this era of post-Enron, backdating options and trying to win back investors confidence in the marketplace, playing by the rules should be championed, flaunting rules should not be.
Further, to suggest that Cisco doesn’t make products that people care about is to say that people don’t care about broadband, internet security, wireless access, video connectivity, VoIP and the whole networked universe. As 80% of all internet traffic touches Cisco equipment at some point, I think you might need to reassess what people care about. Last I checked, this Internet thing is pretty popular.
Lastly, you write, the impression is that “Cisco’s business plan for ‘iPhone’ never amounted to more than an urge to exploit Apple’s intention to launch a product of the same name.” To be clear, the iPhone trademark dates back to 1996 with Infogear, which Cisco acquired in 2000. If we or Infogear were that prescient in 1996 to think that someday we could sue Apple for their infringing on our iPhone trademark at some point some eleven years later, then we deserve all the credit in the world.
Best,
John Earnhardt
Senior Manager, Media Operations
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Posted by John Earnhardt at 07:21PM PST
gopi Jan 22, 2007
“Lastly, you write, the impression is that “Cisco’s business plan for ‘iPhone’ never amounted to more than an urge to exploit Apple’s intention to launch a product of the same name.” To be clear, the iPhone trademark dates back to 1996 with Infogear, which Cisco acquired in 2000.”
Perhaps it’s just nitpicking, but…
Infogear launched their iPhone _before_ Cisco bought them. Cisco did not launch any new iPhone products until December 2006, at a time when you clearly knew Apple’s launch was imminent - you talked previously about having been in negotiations with Apple for a long time.
In other words, Cisco did not do anything beyond honoring support and warranties for pre-existing products. They never shipped or created an iPhone-branded product until Dec 2006, a time when you guys seem to be claiming you were expecting an imminent agreement from Apple to license this trademark.
If, as you claim, you were about to get an agreement from Apple, why would you suddenly start selling your own line of iPhone products? The trademark filing demonstrates that, as of the middle of 2006 you clearly hadn’t even designed an iPhone box.
Planning to sell your iPhone at the same time as Apple’s iPhone seems like a very strange plan for Cisco to have. I wish I could understand the logic behind it.