Cisco v. Apple

I will be watching this closely. Here's a copy of the complaint, courtesy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Biggest mystery: what went wrong with the negotiations? As a former ghostwriter for attorneys, I have a strong opinion about who should investigate this story: The American Lawyer. Over the years, they have published some of the best features on the things that go wrong business-to-business. How do they do it? By hiring writers who try to understand human nature first, and the law second.

UPDATE: See Cisco memo:

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.

This lawsuit is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.

Comments

[John Cass]

I think it shows arrogance on Apple's part. Not a very smart move, the company would be crying foul at this point, if the tables were turned.