http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 10th 2007 11:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 10th 2007 11:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 10th 2007 11:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 12th 2007 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Then there's the terms through which Cisco would let apple use the trademark. It is absolutely inexcusable that Cisco would think that they could force Apple to integrate Cisco's own technology into the iPhone, which NO company would tolerate. (not just apple) If the lawsuit goes on, I'd imagine we'll hear the exact same thing from a Judge, especially if Apple had already agreed to pay Cisco for use of the trademark. ]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
If you had read the whole Cisco press release you would have realized that InfoGear (the company Cisco bought) actually SOLD an iPhone product back in the late 90's before there was even such a thing as an iPod. The trademark is absolutely valid and was not a response to the iPhone when initially granted.]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Market Capitalization:
CSCO - $174B
AAPL - $83B

Revenue (FY2006):
CSCO - $28.4B
AAPL - $19.3B

Gross Profit (FY2006):
CSCO - $18.7B (!!!)
AAPL - $5.5B

Hmmmm, who is looking at who's success? Don't confuse a consumer giant with an all around titan that sells to consumers and Fortune 100 businesses.

Disclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, but I do work for CSCO (and own *several* AAPL devices, including the MacBook I'm typing on now).]]>Jan 11th 2007 1:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/June 2007 = Apple Pwnd
]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Anyway, my point is that with trademark... first in time is not always first in right.]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/ I suggest you stick with fast food chains and leave the technical gadget stuffs to the experts.]]>Jan 11th 2007 4:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
- apple renames the phone for june release
- when people see the phone, they'll still call it iphone. the brand has already been registered in consumers' heads.
- when people hear the words "iphone", they will think of the apple phone.

cisco's phone will always been known as "the other iphone".

remember what steve jobs said about apple tv? he called it iTV, even though it's officially named apple tv. but to him, and most of the folks, it's iTV.

the BRAND is what people believe it is, not what you tell people it is.]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/ I agree. But this is not a popularity contest. Apple will have to pay Cisco no matter what.]]>Jan 11th 2007 4:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Apple had been developing the iPhone long before Cisco ever thought about the VOIP, and iPhone is a natural name for Apple to chose, while it makes very little difference what that cicso toy is called.

we'll see.]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Amusing that Apple claims the lawsuit is silly because Cisco's phone doesn't do cellular.
^
|
|---Loving my Sandisk Sansa (w/FM w/o ITunes)]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/

http://www.applegazette.com/mac/httpwwwapplegazettecomwp-adminpostphpactioneditpost272/ Appe Palladin and other iphone prototypes


http://www.streettech.com/archives_gadget/iPhone.html This was the iPhone that the Apple Boy's (after they lef the company) came out with... of course it really wasn't an iphone. I had one. Could surf the net but didn't use VOIP to make calls.

]]>Jan 11th 2007 9:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 12:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Besides that, the purpose of trademarks is to protect the market from confusion. In our case, Cisco created the confusion with their "iPhone". No one is going to hear "iPhone" and think "oh you mean that obscure VOIP phone from Cisco?"]]>Jan 11th 2007 12:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 1:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 8:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Another question to consider is the use of the Trademark. This trademark has been registered for eleven years but never used. I believe that you must submit a statement of use when submitting a trademark you are allowed six months to use the trademark and up to 5 extensions not to exceed 36 months.

Read more here http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageB2.htm
]]>Jan 11th 2007 1:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Sale.2C_transfer_and_licensing_of_trademarks

Basically, trademarks are marks used in trade to identify the source of goods. You generally can't license a trademark to another company -- this would be fooling the customer as to who made it. The two exceptions are when you transfer the manufacturing of the product (e.g. ibm deskstar -> hitachi deskstar), or if the first company performs QA on the goods and assures the customer that it meets their specs. No transfer would happen because Cisco didn't develop this phone. So, the alternative would be to make sure that the products apple sold were held to the high cisco standards ... that visibility in to apple's manufacturing process and future designs is not something they'd be happy about.]]>Jan 11th 2007 1:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
You can sell a mark outright without monitoring; you just have to sell the associated good will along with the mark; just put it in the contract.


Licensing a mark is when you have to monitor it for qa. All that's necessary there are reports on defective devices and some product testing. So Apple would only have to send some mfg samples to Cisco and an annual report on warranty returns. It's really not a big deal.

It looks like Apple is trying to shoot themselves in the head here.]]>Jan 11th 2007 8:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 1:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 1:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 1:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
To the people saying Apple will prove Cisco had no intention of ever making an "iphone" till this came up, HA. Just look at the two starting letters, I'll help you so you don't have to back track:

IP

otherwise known as THE BACKBONE of Cisco's existence. Ask someone 11 years ago who's more like to make a phone using the internet Cisco or Apple, they'd say Cisco.

Luckily for quality assurance depts everywhere there isn't a time limit between the time someone files for a trademark and the time they have to release a product with the name (or else I'd own the Duke Nukem Forever name by now :) )

I love Apple, and I want their iPhone. I also respect Cisco and understand their situation. Apple will settle this, their ego won't allow them not to. Cisco also has these few things in their favor:
1. can easily show they registered this trademark with the intent of making an IPhone
2.They gave a heads up to Apple that they owned the name but Apple went ahead with it anyway.(Had Cisco waited till after the phone was being sold and THEN filed suit, then it would have been bad faith on Cisco's part)

To the person who said Apple couldn't be expected to give Cisco what they were asking for: That's true. But Cisco doesn't have to be reasonable in the terms it offers. It doesn't have to offer terms at all. They can just take their "iPhone" and go home. :)]]>Jan 11th 2007 1:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 4:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/If they win, they actually lose - Apple will name iPhone in other way and anyway, nobody will be confused that their shitty VoIP phone is actually the iPhone.
If they lose, they lose the trademark and they don't get anything in return.

The only thing that gives value to their trademark is Apple. As long as Apple doesn't shit on that name.]]>Jan 12th 2007 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Fact of the matter is that it IS suspicious that Cisco would launch a phone labeled iPhone less than a month before MacWorld, especially since the last iPhone was 11 years ago. Their defense of the use of the iPhone moniker after such a gap is especially dubious when looking at the big picture. And has been said before, Cisco's iPhone is nothing more than a crappy rebranded Linksys unit, which smacks of being rushed to market with the sole intent of beating apple. (because if Apple had actually shown intent to produce a unit called iPhone and Cisco did not, Apple would have grounds to have the trademark stripped from Cisco)]]>Jan 11th 2007 1:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
itv ---> tv
iPhone ---> phone]]>Jan 11th 2007 2:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 3:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Dang thing still didn't work (known serious issues with USB drivers that Linksys have been aware of for ages, but anyway)

Then funnily enough, on the afternoon (GMT) of the 9th I was attempting to install the CIT200 on my own desktop and so went to the Linksys site and found that the phone was referenced to as "CIT200 - Cordless Internet Telephony Kit
(iPhone®)"... See for yourself:

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=US%2FLayout&packedargs=page%3D2%26cid%3D1115416835852%26c%3DL_Content_C1&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper&SubmittedElement=Linksys%2FFormSubmit%2FProductDownloadSearch&sp_prodsku=1127783455701

Now go to the downloads page and scroll down the list of drivers/products on offer... Why is it that only the iPhone has the Registered Trademark logo by it? Is it REALLY the ONLY registered trademarked product in that entire range of products...

So anyway, thing is.... when I first went to the drivers after Christmas, I cannot be 100% certain, but I am really very sure that the CIT200 was just referred to as the "CIT200 - Cordless Internet Telephony Kit" , without iPhone, otherwise it would have caught my attention...

... and even if it did actually refer to it as "(iPhone®)" then, it was only a few months ago when I last re-installed the product on the old machine and it certainly didn't say "(iPhone®)" then.

So blatantly Cisco is the guilty party here, pitifully desperate to get some free cash and publicity out of this...

Whatever anyone thinks of the handset it cannot be argued that Apple have put a lot of work into creating one of the most unique and forward looking handsets in the market today. The CIT range are average or below average handsets that have just had the term iPhone slapped on them right at the last minute...

So over to the judge, and let's hope he can see through Cisco's sad excuses.


FB]]>Jan 11th 2007 3:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
I do leave tech stuff to experts. Trademark viability is a legal issue. So my point was engadget shouldn't necessarily speculate on the strength of legal positions without speaking to a lawyer or knowing more about the law.

The fact is that Cisco may be infringing on apple's trademark... not the other way around.]]>Jan 11th 2007 10:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 4:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/Jan 11th 2007 8:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
You sir are an idiot. Did you not actually read the article? You damn apple fanboys come in and blast without reading; I hate every one of you.

Let me help by giving you an iQuote for your iLazy iAss, since you appear unable to read the entire article:

"and Cisco's 11-year-old trademark sure looks to have the upper hand."

I do not believe that Cisco had the foresight to plan this from 11 years ago. If they did, I want in on Cisco stock for the time machine they are surely working on.
]]>Jan 11th 2007 8:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
I don't think we know enough yet, but I would tend to believe Cisco has a better case.

But the point is: Apple can't lose. They aren't selling the product for 6 months. Cisco can't bar the product from market. Apple has plenty of time to change the branding. Apple isn't damaging their trademark now.

On the other hand, Chandler sounds like a puss in his post. Oh, boo hoo, you didn't hear from them between Monday 8pm and Wednesday morning... I wonder why that could be?

And it doesn't sound like their intention was to protect the trademark -- we were going to share it and use it on two separate products... all we wanted was an open door to your product? (Guess what Chandler: that is more demanding than money or royalties or a product exchange and defies the notion of protecting the trademark.)

The funny thing that hasn't been noted yet is that Apple DOES have the trademark in almost the rest of the world. This fight will prevent the LinkSys phone from being sold outside the U.S. as well.

For all we know, Cingular is preventing Apple from some sharing... or Apple simply foresees that they couldn't insure openness of Cisco... or that it's not worth it. (Using AppleTV seemed odd... Ultimately, ApplePhone could serve them better as far as branding and is just as good... AppleTV could have simply set up the future direction of branding.)

So, it basically seems like Apple decided it needed another card on the table, make the negotiations a little more two sided.

Maybe Apple even goes so far as to do a Euro launch first (where I think they have the trademark)... Wouldn't that make the Europeans happy?

It'll be a fun one, that's for sure...]]>Jan 11th 2007 8:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Then there's the terms through which Cisco would let apple use the trademark. It is absolutely inexcusable that Cisco would think that they could force Apple to integrate Cisco's own technology into the iPhone, which NO company would tolerate..."


Trademarks are valid based on usage. If Apple was "developing" the product and there were "rumors" about it, that means nothing in the world of trademarks. Apple did not use the term iPhone until earlier this week, and Cisco has been using it for longer.

Your argument that Apple could seek to prove that Cisco was only doing this to create a trademark conflict that they could benefit from is an interesting one, but I think it is a stretch. They did release a product on this, after all, and you would have to prove that they ONLY released it in order to create the trademark conflict, even there is even a law against that.

Your last paragraph is definitely wrong. There is no law that makes it "inexcusable" for companies to want certain concessions from other companies as part of a contract, including a partnership that involves integration. Are you kidding? If they come to an agreement within the bounds of the law, then they can do what they want. Last I checked we didn't live in a communist country and so I'm pretty sure there aren't laws about what desires companies may express during a bargaining process.]]>Jan 11th 2007 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
I'm not saying it's gotta be the iPhone (though by far the best case scenario is to settle with Cisco quickly so they can keep that for consistency's sake, and also because they want to imply lots of parallels with the iPod for sales), but they've got to choose a name and stick with it.]]>Jan 11th 2007 8:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
Nonsense. Apple could damage themselves, fight this for a year, hold up the product, rebrand it ApplePhone at the last minute and they'll sell just as well (they may further tarnish their image though).

Apple could rebrand the iPod tomorrow the ApplePod, and they'll still sell 600% as many as any competitor. People know the product, it's not just the name. Everyone already knows the iPhone without the product existing, without a single ad.]]>Jan 11th 2007 9:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/cisco-svp-mark-chandler-weighs-in-on-iphone-debacle/
I don't believe this to be completely true. You'd be shocked to know how many people ask me at the gym or on the sidelines of my kid's pee-wee football practice if that thing I'm listening to is an iPod.

(In fact, it's a Dell DJ Ditty that I got for $39 when Dell gave up the ghost on its branded mp3 players and looks nothing like any iPod product ever released...)
]]>Jan 11th 2007 9:43AM