Apple and Cisco

It seems, after much surreptitious deliberation, the attorneys for both Apple and Cisco have decided to set aside their intellectual corporate marketing claims and combine their strategic ploys by permitting Apple unfettered usage of Cisco's registered trademark, 'iPhone'. This conjoining of corporate intellectual rights seems unprecedented in the legal sense, because there appears to be no other alleged infringement violations that has led to a corporate hybrid of new technological ideas.

From my perspective, what do I know? What's fair to say is Cisco's registered trademark VoIP (Voice over Internet Phone ), at first glance, does not come close to the contested infringement of what's alleged to be Apple's early expected released of the iPhone, which is the graduated achievement of Apple's iPod. See the similarities: iPone versus iPod and Apple's iTunes downloadable music and podcast store, and then size this up against the VoIP. The differences are utterly striking! Again, for those not so temporarily inclined--iPhone, iPod and iTunes versus the VoIp. Where is the infringement? Are the differences so similar to the average eye or intellegence, that somebody would be confused about the VoIP's or iPhone's features or their respective manufactures? I am highly doubtful! Thus, if anybody deserves the rights to register and market an iPhone, it would be a resounding Apple.

Now I can understand why Cisco was eager to settle this case! If the case had proceeded through its natural federal civil docket course, perhaps Apple would have prevailed. Why? because whose product line is much closer to "iPhone" than Cisco's product of Voice over the Internet Phone? You guessed it, Apple's iPhone. If I were sitting on a jury, and of course not having read any portions of the complaint, oral testimony or the benefit of reading what those deposed influential corporate figures had to say, I would find in Apple's favor.

In the final analysis, however, this was a brilliant corporate and legal maneuver by Apple, deciding to settle with Cisco. Now Apple can move ahead with the iPhone as expected, and with the added benefit of having Cisco's technology & legal departments involve in the process, they can claim a court and product victory (the iPhone remains in the 'i' family). Instead of these departments confusing the issue, they now allow Apple to cash in on the product's successes without paying royalties to Cisco (I think) or stalling its release until a bench or jury trial concluded, which could have been years from now. And with the way technology seems to be traveling at today's warp speed, this would have been financially catastrophic for both the plaintiff and defendant.

More to come!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS