As Dave noted on Friday, we expected to hear more from Duke on the iPhone-killed-our-network story, and we did -- on Friday the university released a statement that identified the problem, now resolved, as "a Cisco-based network issue" which has now been patched. The iPhone has been fully exonerated as a cause or victim of the wireless issue, demonstrating once again that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Hey, it's not like Cisco's still bitter about the whole iPhone trademark thing, either.

It seems that Kevin Miller, with Duke's IT department, jumped the gun a bit last week when he told Network World, with considerable confidence, that the iPhone was at the root of Duke's wireless problems. "I don't believe it's a Cisco problem in any way, shape or form," he said. Oops. Sounds familiar to me... network guys always bristle when someone says "it's a router problem," and the immediate (and often correct) reaction is to blame the newest devices on the LAN. Don't worry, Mr. Miller, we've got the perfect Sysadmin Appreciation Day gift for you: a fruit basket, chock full of Apples.

via Macworld

VPNs are a staple of corporate life nowadays. They create a secure connection from your computer to your company's computers using a 'Virtual Private Network.' This allows you to access company documents via public networks in a secure fashion.

Cisco is a big player in the VPN market, and luckily for us OS X users there is a Mac client that allows connections from Macs to Cisco VPN appliances. Sadly, it sucks. The interface isn't Mac like, and while it works it doesn't offer up any nice features like Keychain integration or automatic reconnects. Enter Shimo, from nexUmoja. This little program offers up an alternative UI to the Cisco client that adds a number of features including Keychain integration, Growl notifications, and auto reconnecting.

All of this is great and as a user of Cicso's VPN client you would think I would use this without hesitation. Sadly, the whole point of VPNs is to make your communications more secure, and I simply don't trust a third party app sitting between my encrypted data and the Cisco VPN appliance. That's just me though, I'm slightly paranoid.

MacNN is reporting that Apple and Cisco have reached an agreement over the use of the "iPhone" brand. As we previously mentioned, Cisco had sued Apple following the Macworld announcement claiming to hold the US trademark, though Cisco later granted several extensions to allow time to finish negotiations. This has apparently paid off, as MacNN says that under "the agreement, both companies are free to use the 'iPhone' trademark on their products throughout the world." There's more corporate speak about "exploring opportunities," etc., but the main news is that this little spat is cleared up, removing yet another small barrier to Apple's apparent plan for iPhone world domination.

Thanks to those who sent this in!

The litigation biz is a messy and complex one, which is why I'm thankful Engadget has rounded up law student members from the Columbia Science & Technology Law Review for a primer series covering the ins and outs of the potentially ensuing Apple/Cisco litigation. This first part covers trademarks - what they're for, how to maintain them and the available courses of action when your trademark gets the rip-off treatment.

Of particular interest to me is the fact that the owner of a trademark must be vigilant about maintaining control over it and defending their turf. If a company starts lying down and letting their 'mark run rampant, they can lose the reigns entirely. This series should be a great read for anyone interested in a quickie IP law education without all the student loans and all-nighters.

It's good to see two major putting down legal weapons of trademark war and setting an example for the children. Forbes is reporting that Cisco has agreed to give Apple some extra time to respond to their iPhone trademark lawsuit (perhaps they know they might not have a leg to stand on?) so the two companies can sit down and maybe work things out peacefully.

The actual discussions are forthcoming, but since Cisco is apparently still seeking interoperability, I'm betting these 'discussions' aren't going to last much longer than a 'chat.' Apple doesn't share a bed with another 3rd party very often, and the iPhone means they're joined at more than just the hip with Cingular already.

There's something deeply fascinating about article debates at Wikipedia; reading the intricate threads is like eavesdropping on a librarian's convention where the punch has been spiked with PCP. The tumult du jour is the involved discussion on the appropriate naming and disposition of the iPhone article.

It seems that the rational question of "What do we put at the wikipedia.org/wiki/iPhone page: the Apple product, the Cisco/Linksys product, or a disambiguation of the two products?" has led to fear, thence to anger and naturally to suffering. The commotion and disagreement apparently attracted the attention of some Cisco employees, who attempted to right the perceived injustice and were promptly chastised. The whole affair has resulted in the virtual lockdown of the iPhone page while tempers and keyboards cool off.

If you want a taste of the secret sauce that helps Wikipedia manage as a self-regulating community, check out the conventions on the naming of articles. Highly gripping; couldn't put it down.

Thanks Adam!

Ed Burnette over at ZDNet asks a question we haven't seen anywhere else. Has Cisco already lost its right to the iPhone trademark? Several specialists in trademark law describe how Cisco's trademark was registered back in '99 and may not have been properly renewed or used within the 6 years (plus 6 month grace period) span allowed.

Expert Jay Behmke writes "If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark...It is possible that the Declaration of Use is defective, as there was no continuous use, and the sample that Cisco submitted was for a product not released until 7 months later."

Read the whole thing to see where these experts are coming from. It's still a matter best left to lawyers to figure out, but the article points up some very interesting background about the issue. In the end, at least in our opinion, Cisco's case may fail because Ivan in package design was vacationing in Nassau that week... Sticking the iPhone sticker onto a pre-existing box? In the words of our own Mike Rose, "that's not even half-assed, it's more like like one-eighth-assed."

As you all know by now (and saw Scott post last night), the trademark discussions between Apple and Cisco over the use of the iPhone name did not resolve cleanly and Cisco has filed suit. Negotiations were apparently in progress up until Monday night, with the remaining issues focused on interoperability between the Linksys iPhone and Apple's new cellphone, according to Cisco's spokesman. Cisco didn't expect Apple to introduce the phone as "iPhone" without a completed agreement.

Apple's response? Spokeswoman Natalie Kerris pointed out that the iPhone trademark has been poorly defended: there are several other VoIP products and at least one set of headphones that are already using the "iPhone" or "IPhone" brand.

The New York Times reports that companies like Comwave, Nuvio and Teledex already sell products with an iPhone name; there's also a full rundown in this preannounce post at the Barron's blog.

Quoting Ms. Kerris, via News.com:

"We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.

"There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products," Kerris said. "We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."

As noted previously, I am not a lawyer; my minimal knowledge of trademark law tells me, however, that when a trademark falls into disuse, is not defended against infringement, or becomes a generic word (aspirin), it's fair game for other companies to use. Cisco claims that it has pursued infringement actions against these other companies, but it seems that many of them have been selling "iPhone" products for some time.

OK, time to call on the TUAW Law Squad: any professional opinions out there?

Update: Cisco's general counsel blogs on the suit here; Harvard Law on the loss of trademark here. If Infogear/Linksys/Cisco had a three-year lapse in using "iPhone" for a product at any time between 1996 and today, that's abandonment. If not, they have a case.

Update II: Check the Internet Archive to see Cisco's iPhone support page from 2000-2006. Not an aggressive defense of trademark, but the product was there...

Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, has some things to say about Cisco's suit involving Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark. Chandler says that this suit isn't about money, nor is it about derailing Apple's cool new phone. Rather, it is all about protecting Cisco's intellectual property, something that Steve said Apple would do aggressively with the iPhone (remember when Steve said that Apple has over 200 patents on the iPhone and they plan to enforce them? Kettle? Meet pot.).

Chandler's post also gives us some details about how long Apple and Cisco have been engaged in talks about the iPhone. Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark since 2000 and they have had several conversations with Apple since 2001. The last several months have brought more intense discussions which were active even after Steve had unveiled the iPhone.

What was the stumbling block? Cisco hoped that Apple's iPhone and their iPhone could, at some point, be interoperable (how, we don't know) and Apple didn't seem so keen on that. It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out given the transparency Cisco is approaching this situation with, and Apple's notorious secretive nature. Either way, Chandler's post is well worth a read.

The sound of Steve Jobs saying 'iPhone' was music to many an Apple fan's ears yesterday, but it seems Steve may have spoken too soon. The Associated Press is reporting that Cisco is planning on suing Apple over the use of the word 'iPhone,' which Cisco has a trademark on. It was reported that Apple and Cisco were on the edge of making a deal, but no legal documents were signed before Steve hit the stage yesterday.

Does this mean that the iPhone is dead and long live the iPod Mobile? Only time will tell, but I am sure Cisco can be wooed with a bucket of money.

Update: Here is the text of Cisco's press release on the suit. Tip o' the hat to The Apple Blog.