Cisco Lawyer is blogging about the Apple Lawsuit

Mark Chandler, Cisco’s SVP and General Counsel has decided to blog about the iPhone lawsuit, trying to clarify what the situation is all about, and making sure that we all know that Cisco was just trying to work with Apple…and Apple didn’t want to work back the way Cisco wanted them too…so they’re suing them.

To read this article you would think that Cisco, a company that is MUCH bigger than Apple, was an underdog in this situation, and is working overtime to paint a simpathetic picture.

Something about this feels very greasy to me, and I can’t really put my finger on it…but I can’t help but feel that Cisco is going to milk this for all it’s worth, and by the time it’s over, they’re going to get a few million dollars worth of free advertising for their new iPhone line.

Now, having said that…boy Jobs and Co were real dumbasses on this one, weren’t they?

I mean, seriously, how stupid a move is it to announce the Apple Phone product as the iPhone without the paperwork being signed?

The worst part about all of this, to me, is that iPhone isn’t even that good of a name! It kinda sucks. The “i” thing is played out, and it’s time to move on to something else.

Hopefully Apple will just announce a name change and be done with it…but I don’t think we’re that lucky.


  1. thebog says

    So many posts of how Apple is wronging Cisco, Cicso wronging Apple… what would you say if you knew Cicso actually “lost” the patent for “non-use”?

    The following is a quote from an Ed Burnette column at ZDNet…

    “The Cisco iPhone trademark was registered 11/16/1999 (Reg. No. 2293011). In order to keep a trademark registration active, you have to file a Declaration of Use on or before the sixth anniversary of the registration date, in which you state, under penalty of perjury, that you have been using the trademark continuously during that period. The sixth anniversary would have been 11/16/2005.”

    Apple probaly gave Cicso a chance to be reasonable, and walked out because they wanted too much – knowing Cisco had missed the “phone” on the trademark…


  1. […] I do agree with some observers that there is a publicity aspect to this news, and it might be viewed as deliberate on the part of either side (look how popular the term “iPhone” is today). For one, Steve Jobs is more marketing maven than tech genius, and is known to act deliberately (oh yes, apparently he’s also stubborn and unrelenting). And Cisco, an undeniably more massive company than Apple, seems to be playing the underdog. […]

  2. […] Here is Apple’s response to the Cisco trademark infringement action: “It’s silly. We’re the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone” There is a lot of discussion from bloggers about the iPhone trademark today. Paul Mooney: WHO’S YOUR DADDY STEVE JOBS? Pete Cashmore / Mashable!: Breaking: Apple Sued over iPhone Ian Douglas / Telegraph Blogs: Apple in a legal stew Larry Dignan / Between the Lines: Apple picks wrong fight with Cisco; misfires on iPhone trademark Paul Miller / Engadget Mobile: Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle Scott McNulty / The Unofficial Apple Weblog: Cisco’s General Counsel blogs about the iPhone suit Apple Gazette: Cisco Lawyer is blogging about the Apple Lawsuit Paul Miller / Engadget: Cisco sues Apple for trademark infringement: ruh roh! Jason D. O’Grady / The Apple Core: Cisco blogs about the iPhone suit Allen Stern / CenterNetworks: Grudgematch: Cisco sues Apple over iPhone trademark Tknuewer / Indiskretion Ehrensache: Apple vs. Cisco = Muster für Nachrichten in Weblogs Paul Kedrosky’s Infectious Greed: Cisco Comments on Apple-Suit Blogstorm Geeknews / Geek News Central: How’s it Feel Apple to be Sued for Trademark Infringement John Koetsier / Sparkplug 9 >> bizhack: why apple left cisco at the altar 10jan07 Robert Scoble / Scobleizer: Cisco smacks back at Apple on its blog Dragos / @rgumente: Cisco versus Apple Joe Duck: Cisco to Apple – leggo of my iPhone! […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *