Although Apple and Cisco Systems remained florist’s chrysanthemum Thursday on the detail of their mass to share the “ iPhone ” trademark , some analyst said Cisco got the short end of the reefer .
Wednesday , the two companies announced thatthey would both habituate the iPhone nameon their product . They also pledged to “ explore opportunity for interoperability in the region of certificate and consumer and enterprise communications , ” according to ajoint statementissued Wednesday Nox .
Cisco , in a lawsuit filed in federal court last month , claimed the iPhone stylemark via a 2000 accomplishment of Infogear . The San Jose , Calif. , company has sold a line of Linksys VoIP gimmick under the iPhone recording label for over a year .
As part of the settlement , all sound action on both sides has been dismissed , but the eternal sleep of the arranging ’s details remain confidential .
That did n’t halt analyst familiar with Apple , Cisco and the iPhone hubbub from mull over on who won and , more crucial , who recede at the talks mesa .
“ The formula in Silicon Valley is that if Apple leaves the table smile , the other bozo got screw , ” said Rob Enderle , an self-governing psychoanalyst and principal of the Enderle Group . “ And Apple left the table smiling on this one . ”
Roger Kay , of Endpoint Technologies Associates , agreed . “ It certainly look like Cisco give away the store . ”
Both Enderle and Kay tell their take was based on the clear note value of the iPhone name , and the vague interoperability promises made in the statement . “ I ’m not convinced that Cisco got what it wanted out of this , ” say Enderle . In the past , he added , Apple has made promises to partner that it did n’t keep . “ That ’s been a account of deals with Apple . The partner always regrets it . ”
Kay , on the other script , sham that some money must have changed hands . The way : from Apple to Cisco . “ It would be very odd if there was n’t some money exchanged , because Apple aim almost everything . ” Kay say the iPhone name could be deserving as much as a “ duet of hundred million . ”
Cisco decline to point out on the record beyond the prescribed joint statement ; Apple did not turn back a call for comment .
Neither Enderle nor Kay was surprised that a tidy sum was struck . “ Apple could n’t afford to go to court , ” said Enderle . Apple had argued publicly that its cell - phone - based iPhone was dissimilar enough from Cisco ’s VoIP iPhone to rationalise using the trademark . If that reasoning had win out , Apple would have opened itself up to interchangeable justifications from rivals . “ Others could have used the same line of reasoning with the iPod , ” Enderle say .
“ Apple clearly make the better deal , ” Kay pronounce . “ Steve ’s [ Jobs ] power to hypnotize people is legendary . He ’s like the Rasputin of the computer industry . ”
engineering science attorneyKen Dortbacked up the analysts on the no - surprise front , saying that trademark dispute are usually settled before going to court of law — especially when the stakes are as high as in this case .
“ I think everybody ’s a achiever here , ” say Dort , an attorney with McGuire Woods LLP in Richmond , Va. “ Apple catch a name which really tracks into its system of [ trade]marks , while Cisco gets some kind of development family relationship with Apple . This does well for everybody . ”
Another psychoanalyst , Yankee Group ’s Zeus Kerravala , had a different take than either Enderle or Kay . “ Who gets the brusque stick ? Well , potentially Microsoft , since this help Cisco be more of a consumer vendor and Apple to be more of a corporate vendor . ”
Kerravala , however , question whether Cisco and Apple can in reality work together , agreement or not . “ Apple and Cisco each made their mark by making things vertically mix and where they own the ecosystem from final stage to end , ” he said . “ The question is , can these two fellowship share the spotlight to leverage each other ’s strengths to come out with something better ? ”
If they can , and the promise of interoperability is credible , Kerravala sees an upside for both companies . “ [ They ] should go beyond this name decision and battle for the digital home in the Microsoft - oriented humanity . Both are viable competitors to Microsoft ’s scheme . ”
Computerworld ’s Matt Hamblen and Todd R. Weiss conduce to this report .
