Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Jan 2007 23:53 UTC, submitted by danB
Permalink for comment 200578
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-01
Or, it's all planned by Apple and Cisco. Big hooplah, they settle, both companies get a lot of free advertising.
Mmm, black helicopters...
Given that this news has negatively affected Apple's share price (which anyone could have predicted), I think such action would probably be illegal. Not that Steve Jobs seems to care much about the legalities of share dealing, of course.
Also, it's not like Apple need any more publicity for this thing: it was on the front of national newspapers here today, for goodness' sake. And this doesn't exactly make them look good.
Having thought about it, I think it's most likely that they expected to be sued, and will try to use the court case to extract some reasonable licensing terms out of Cisco. I don't know enough about US trademark law though to know whether a judge can force such a thing however.