BostonPocketPC

As c|net (and seemingly 2/3's of the world's population) is reporting, Cisco is suing Apple over use of the iPhone name and trademark (owned by Cisco). I guess I need to add 2 more items to my list of obstacles the iPhone and Apple need to overcome for success -

This legal hurdle. Obvious, yes. But when I heard about this yesterday evening, I nearly fell out of my seat. The reason is that I have been following this whole thing for a while.

For those that are unaware, there is a little history here. Cisco stole some thunder from Internet rumors a month or so ago by announcing their iPhone, which is a VoIP device. Lots of rumors about an iPhone were flying around, with everyone simply assuming that this was from Apple.

When the Apple iPhone was announced this week, there were quotes that made it seem as though the issues regarding the trademark had been worked out. I know that the first thing I thought when I heard the announcement was "Oh - guess Apple bought the trademark." Turn to last night, when it appeared Apple's meaning of working something out was "<expletive deleted> you, Cisco. We, by divine right, own anything beginning with a little 'i'." I am happy to see the surprise was not unique to me, as even Cisco's very own SVP and General Counsel Mark Chandler was taken aback -

"So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No."

But wait - it gets better, as Chandler "lays the blog smackdown" on Apple -

"At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street."

Why do I point this all out? For new issue #2...
Arrogance. Apple does what it does very well. At times, however, Apple can behave like the business equivalent of Terrell Owens, complete with all of the arrogance and air of superiority about them. Apple knows media players. Do they know cellular phones? Do they have experience with the cellular industry as a hardware provder AND OS provider AND content provider. Apple cannot afford to simply dismiss these business challenges as trivial, or assume knowledge because they have had success in other areas.