The suit over the name will be resolved in no time. Either Apple Computer, Inc. Apple Incorporated will purchase the rights to the name 'iPhone,' or they'll just call it the 'Apple Phone,' like they re-dubbed the formerly-known-as-'iTV' as the 'AppleTV.'

I was quite impressed with Apple's iPhone. Granted, not everything in it is totally new (although they would have you to believe it that way). My T-Mobile MDA running Windows Mobile 5 has a LOT of the same PDA and phone features, and multi-touch screens have been around for awhile now. Dr.Han at NYU came out with the same intuitive method of navigation (see videos at http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/). ...I wonder who came out with the patent first

However, the iPhone is soooooooo much FASTER and sleeker -- overall, it's just so refined! The graphical user interface is beautiful (in the dark-glass style). The iPod music, video and photo management seem a joy to interact with. The new view-before-you-play voicemail arrangement with Cingular is a great feature (just wish you could use the device with other providers). And the new full-featured Safari browser looks like a real advance in handheld computing.

It's too bad Apple didn't showcase some of the application-running ability of the device, as they claim it can run any OSX application, such as a full-featured word processor and spreadsheet program (instead of a PDA-specific miniapp).

Too bad you have to use iTunes Oh, and I think it's pretty overpriced, too.

To see more of Dr.Han's FTIR multi-touch technology, click below:

What's a little bewildering is that when everyone was speculating over whether Apple's "big news" was a phone or a TV appliance (turned out it was both, of course), at least one press source I saw mentioned that they wouldn't be able to call it an "iPhone" because of Cisco's product (which may have been released partly in anticipation of Apple's announcement, to demonstrate they weren't just sitting on the trademark).

Why Apple's attorneys weren't in the front row jumping up and down making throat-slitting gestures while the new Apple phone was being called an "iPhone" is weird. Why Apple hadn't purchased the name before releasing the product is strange (although not entirely inexplicable; maybe they assumed they could buy the trademark after the announcement, maximizing the impact of a surprise announcement--a bit arrogant and thickheaded, if you ask me, but maybe plausible).

It's a pretty machine; I might have to surrender and actually get a cell phone....

Yes, they'll ride rough-shod over anyone in their corporate way, as usual...

Won't happen, Cisco is to large, they're worth something like 140-170 billion where as Apple is only worth 70 billion

maybe they assumed they could buy the trademark after the announcement, maximizing the impact of a surprise announcement--a bit arrogant and thickheaded, if you ask me, but maybe plausible

arrogant, god yes, theickheaded, yes, plausible, no. Apple and Cisco have been working on a deal to allow Apple use of the trademark, Apple just failed to sign the final agreement offered by Cisco and it seems like they have no intention to do so.

One would think that you would a company with as many smart people as apple would have copyrighted something like that early on in the design process if for no other reason than to secure the name.

Cisco has held the trademark since something like 2000 (may be 2001 or 2002 though, can't remember) when they purchased a company that owned it. That company registered the trademark in the late 90's so really, Apple missed the boat good this time.

here's a quote from an article I just read on this subject:

..."The name iPhone is a registered trademark of Linksys, a division of Cisco. Linksys picked up the iPhone name when it bought a company called Infogear Technology Corp. in 2000. Cisco's iPhones are telephone handsets designed for use on a VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) network.

The iPhone has proved to be the most talked-about product at this year's Macworld, and its positive reception has sent Apple's stock surging over the past two days. The company's stock closed at US$97 Wednesday, up nearly 5 percent for the day. Apple and Cisco have been in negotiations for about two years over Apple's desire to license the iPhone trademark, said Cisco spokesman John Noh. When Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone Tuesday at Macworld, Cisco had not yet received a signed trademark licensing agreement from Apple, even though the two companies had been negotiating terms as recently as Monday night.

"Because they have been negotiating with us on licensing the trademark all this time, Apple is acknowledging that we own the name," said Noh. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel for Cisco.

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.

But if Apple was in talks with Cisco to license the iPhone trademark, it would be "a dangerous move" for Apple to start using the iPhone name anyway, said trademark attorney Allonn Levy of law firm Hopkins & Carley in San Jose, California. "It could be seen as intentional infringement." ...."

- me thinks these 2 companies will settle out of court after a bit of impressive pocket change has changed pockets from Apple to Cisco. Apple wants that name badly and I'm sure they'll pay a pretty penny for it.

Good for Cisco, but Cisco has no use for it and will probably sell the name.

According to this article, when Apple couldn't get Cisco to give them the rights, they set up a front company to try and get it from them.
WWW Link

I like the new Iphone features, very cool.
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/3847