<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget Mobile - Comments for Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle</title>
<link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link>
<description>Engadget Mobile Comments for Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[Wouldn't interoperability REDUCE differentiation, and therefore further blur the (necessary) IP distinction between the two products?<br><br>One is a cell phone, the other is a VoIP phone. They're not competing products.<br><br>Cisco has every right to protect the name, but I don't understand how this WASN'T about money.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[jon]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 1:18AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[EVERYTHING'S about money. my hat's off to Cisco for pattenting the name first. definitely earned them the right to capitalize on Apple's shortcomings. seriously Apple, you should have had this name-patent in the bag YEARS ago instead of worrying so much about "rumors". you knew it was going to get out sooner or later. and now look at you...paying the price so early in the game.<br><br>and another thing...do you really think they'll sell the projected 10 million iPhone's in 1 years time?? even WITHOUT 3G data and a mediocre pixeled camera?? even with excellent marketing, the public can only be fooled for so long.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[LiSa]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 2:52AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[According to Apple, I hit the nail on the head:<br><br><a href="http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/01/10/iphonesuit/index.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/01/10/iphonesuit/index.php</a><br><br>QUOTE:<br>An Apple executive told PC World magazine that because the Cisco iPhone is a VOIP phone and the Apple iPhone is a cell phone, Apple is not in violation of Cisco’s trademark. “They’re different products,” said Greg Joswiak, Apple’s vice president of worldwide iPod marketing. The iPhone also includes an iPod music player.<br><br>Can I start blogging for you guys now? Haha :P]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[jon]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 3:59AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[While I'm far from an IP attorney, I would wager that, due to Stevie's big mouth, Cisco is probably in an even better bargaining position now that the iPhone is what the whole world knows the new product as.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 8:13AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[It is funny that Apple makes these sorts of distinctions between their iPhone and Cisco's but does not want anyone to use the word "pod" in any sort of non-Apple product.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 8:32AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[The talks were going right up to the wire, when Jobs evidently decided that the show must go on.<br><br>As Jim notes above, Steve Jobs announcing the iPhone radically changed the power relationship in Cisco's favor.  Which I assume both parties knew about.<br><br>Cisco was apparently making demands and holding out for "openness" that Apple is not known for, and for a joint marketing strategy.  This would obviously not sit well with Jobs.   It's possible that Cisco deliberately stalled negotiations on this one to push past the announcement in order to have more clout afterwards.<br><br>All in all, poorly played by Jobs -- he should have sewn this thing up months ago.  I assume he didn't because either he thought he could get out of it for a few million dollars, or because he didn't want to give away too much advance info on iPhone to non-Apple players.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 10:00AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[If Cisco can't come to an agreement with Apple, they should just release the trademark into the wild, and tell everyone in the world that they can call anything they want an iPhone.  See how Apple likes it when the market's flooded with cheap knock-off iPhones.  <br><br>(Spoken of course as a person with no knowledge of trademark law at all)]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Gnome]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 11:32AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Cisco SVP Mark Chandler weighs in on iPhone debacle]]></title><link>http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/</guid><description><![CDATA[LiSa Cisco did not pAtEnT iPhone they bought a company who registered the trademark.  Figure it out.<br><br>And if you did not realize last time around with the iPod, people will buy it.  Apple may not sell 10 million if that is what they claimed, but they will sell as many as they can produce.<br><br>Jim, yes you are not an IP attorney.  Bargaining was done when the court case was filed.  Regardless of what the whole world knows the iPhone is means they don't know what Cisco's is and does and means it does not work for Cisco.<br>Also go lookup Teledex iPhone and Info Gear iPhone and upgrade your IP skills.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[system]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 11th 2007 6:40PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>