Apple let it be known through a series of carefully orchestrated leaks that Cisco had lost its rights to the iPhone name because of neglect. Which makes it very strange that Apple is now in desperate talks with Cisco to avoid legal action. And has, indeed, asked for a 30 day extension in the iPhone name matter.

What on earth is going on?

Yet only on January 11, Natalie Kerris, Apple’s director of music public relations was singing a merry and very different tune: ‘We think the Cisco lawsuit is just silly, because a number of other VOIP companies are already using the name iPhone.’ And we think someone was not keeping Natalie Kerris in the loop for she has now clammed up and is issuing no more statements off her own bat.

There IS now an official statement that says the aim of the extension is to allow more time for discussion between the two companies to try to reach an agreement on trademark rights and product interoperability. Which, taken on its face value, means Cisco has won before it starts and Apple is going to have to lay down serious money.

Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler says the issue is not about money (remember he is a lawyer), royalties or an exchange for Cisco products and services, but rather about ‘an open approach.’

On his site he said, ‘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. That’s it. Openness and clarity.’

If you have followed all that legal nonsense — and it is nonsense — you need to add one very large bag of money. That is not just the view of one, admittedly, jaundiced journalist.

Craig Mathias, principal analyst at the Farpoint Group, said, ‘The issue is clearly just money. Apple might not have been as forthcoming as they might have been with Cisco, and when Cisco saw the size of the opportunity, they wanted to renegotiate.’ That is, ask for more money.

He is certain that Apple and Cisco had an initial agreement about the use of the iPhone trademark before the announcement at MacWorld in January although no one who is not working for the two companies has seen the agreement.

Lee Bromberg, founding partner of the intellectual property law firm Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP in Boston, said, ‘They have some sort of agreement to wait a few months before they let the fur fly. They will send something to the court saying what they want to do, and I’m sure the court will accommodate them. They’re saying maybe there’s a way we can live and let live. Just let the marketplace deal with the issue in an effective way.’

The most likely scenario is that the two companies will come to a financial arrangement regarding the iPhone trademark. And my own guess is Cisco will have a product but it will not be anything like the iPhone. It will be very clearly distinguished.

Apple’s legal people do not come out of this one smelling of roses. Nor does its PR department. Nor yet Steve Jobs

Related:

Entry was posted on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm under Apple, Cell phones, Legal.

Read more entries by Gareth Powell.
Stumble It!