face it… Everyone always knew Apple would call there phone the “iPhone“.

Cisco and Apple apparently spent months planning a roll-out of the hand-set. My guess is Cisco made demands Steve Jobs could not abide by. So, in typical Jons fashion he turned out the lights on Cisco and decided to introduce the iPhone his way. He introduced the iPhone at MacWorld last month and created an enormous buzz.

Within 24 hours, Cisco sued Apple last month (which means everyone involved knew there was going to be a fight) over its use of the “iPhone” name, to which Cisco claims a trademark, and Apple executives retorted by calling the lawsuit “silly,” it looked like the two companies were headed straight to court to slug it out.

But now, I understand in a few days there is going to be an announcement that the two companies have agreed to allow Apple more time to respond to Cisco’s lawsuit with the aim of reaching an agreement on trademark rights and “interoperability,” Cisco’s stated goal in earlier negotations with Apple.

This proves that Cisco’s stance is, indeed, the silly one. If Cisco were asking Apple for straightforward trademark licensing terms, I’d understand. But asking Apple, the bastion of independent thinking, and “not-invented-here”/1 syndrome, to alter its iPhone’s design to make it work more smoothly with Cisco’s clunky gear is a non-starter.

And really, what does Cisco expect in terms of interoperability? Apple’s iPhones will call Cisco’s iPhones, and vice versa. They’re both phones, after all. Asking for deeper integration than that seems to be motivated by sheer nerdliness about adherence to highly obscure inter-networking standards (that will devolve over time any way), not a desire to actually make things easier for consumers.

peace to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

___________________________________________________
/1 Apple historical stance on technology innovation.