Cisco has made some reasonably sober-minded comments on the blogstorm concerning its suit against Apple over the name “iPhone”. There is clearly fault enough to go around here, with Apple acting precipitously, and Cisco underestimating Apple’s self-confidence. (The former company sounds more than a bit plaintive when it complains that Apple gave it the equivalent of a “We’re too busy” response.)
Then again, while Cisco says it didn’t want money, what it did want isn’t nearly as clear as it is suggesting that it is:
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. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. Thatâ€™s it. Openness and clarity.
While this sounds nice, does anyone know what it all really means? A guarantee of a Cisco-friendly protocol and an assurance that Cisco products would get promoted in every Apple iPhone campaign? More? Less? Would Cisco get to vet all Apple iPhone ad campaigns?