I posted this to Cisco's blog entry on the iPhone Trademark. It doesn't appear as if it's going to get published. It's hard to imagine that the Apple Fanboy engine hasn't left a bevy of critical comments:
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.
It's obvious by two "GREAT ARTICLE" posts that Cisco is filtering out any criticism.
[UPDATE]It appears as if the comments have been moderated and approved. See the comments from one Cisco Blogger in the comments that follow this article. It's hard to know whether these comments were going to be approved or not - I have had emails from 14 Mac users saying they have posted comments. 4 of them have said they were publishing their comments on another site or their own blogs so they could be seen in the absence of Cisco moderation in a timely manner. If I were to guess ... I would say they either saw this story (which obviously they did by the comment in the comments section) and they got a huge influx of email concerning the moderation.