What does "interoperability" mean in this context? If it means that Apple's iPhone will make VOIP connections with the Cisco product over WiFi networks, then that probably violates at least the initial period of Apple's agreement with Cingular. I think Apple's just stalling until they can get their phone on the market.

That's an excellent question, Paul, and I should have cited the article written by Stephen Lawson of the IDG News Service: "... Cisco would have been willing to license the iPhone name in exchange for Apple making the handset interoperate smoothly with Cisco's products. Linksys is the biggest seller of consumer Wi-Fi access points and is expanding its home product line into the voice and entertainment realms. Apple's iPhone is equipped with Wi-Fi and includes audio, photo, and video player software."

True perhaps, but one has to wonder why all this fuss over an agreement that easily could be handled without the lawsuit or even public awareness. It would seem to be a mutually beneficial thing to have the most popular consumer phone run on the most popular network devices.

Why all the chest-pounding? Oh, that's right...money.

If Cisco really wants to increase interoperability, they'll be a hero of the iPhone buyers (and in the end be beneficial to Apple).

Bert

I have never read John Chambers say the interoperability was in terms of Apple's iPhone. I think people may be assuming that. Perhaps, Cisco is thinking about other Apple products. For instance, Apple TV.

It is possible, however, Cisco wants to have Wi-Fi networks available for phones, and the iPhone to run on those networks. I suspect Cingular would not want that.

Regardless, Apple made he smart move by using the name. It drew lots of press coverage, and the expense will be minimal even if it has to change the name.
Also, from my perspective and understanding of the facts, (one who has studied Trademark law) I think Apple has a decent case. Moreover, the Trademark Office is currently determining whether Cisco lost its trademark for lack of use. It went six years without using the name. In trademark law, less time can cause you to lose the right to the mark.

If what I read was true, Cisco's trademark of the name iPhone had expired because they did not produce a product using the name within a sufficient period. The phone they pretended to introduce last spring was already too late, and was just a sticker on an existing product. Apple is just being nice in negotiating with them until they have a product ready to sell.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Terrin.

The quote I attribute to Chambers is one I pulled directly from an article on bizjournals.com. Here's the link: http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/070201/1411954.html?.v=1. I suppose it's possible the quote is entirely made-up, but I have no reason to believe so, especially given that the Cisco-Apple announcement today also refers to discussing interoperability.

As to whether or not Apple rightfully picked up the iPhone name because Cisco waited too long; well, I've read varying opinions. But Apple could certainly just let the court decide on the matter if it's so confident in its case.

What if apple renamed the iPhone; ePhone or Apple Phone just like the AppleTv product they are launching!!!

What if apple renamed the iPhone ...

In a previous entry on this subject, a reader suggested Apple call it the iPod Phone (along the lines of the iPod Shuffle and the iPod Nano). That would have been a sensible way for Apple to avoid legal battles, certainly, as well as not bring additional publicity to Cisco's iPhone.