Just be realistic. Even if Apple going to name their phone as iMobile or iCell or whatever "i" they want, it's still a cool gadget. The effect of the name itself will be very minimum (if there's any). And even if Cisco going to name their product with a popular name like "iPod" it would still not be as iconic in the customer's eye. It's interesting to know the outcome of the lawsuit though. Apple seems very confident and I'm not too knowledgeable in law matters so I'll just sit and watch them settle the quarrel

The device is amazing; to continue with the momentum, I suggest a new name (iPhone is limiting anyway) to something like iMOBILE, or MacMobile - this is the "mobile" revolution, no?

I do not know the details of the lawsuit, but is it just me or is Cisco simply trying to get some attention? Apple started adding the "i" to computers and then consumer electronics. Anybody who has heard of an iPhone thinks first of Apple. Cisco? Who is Cisco? Oh yeah, they sell networking products (and other things). My guess is that since Cisco's capitalization is twice that of Apple, they are simply going to try to bully them to get noticed. Sounds to me like anther Rosie and Donald sandbox fight. Sad, very sad.

iVaan, it is just you. Cisco are a major company with a pre-existing and legitimate claim to the iphone mark.

Yes, I don't believe this is Cisco's attempt to attain attention considering they need none. Their lawyers said they tried to work it out but Apple deliberately disobeyed their requests. From what I understand, Infogear, which had this trademark before Cisco aquired them, had the phrase 'iPhone' trademarked before 1998. Apple released the beginning of the 'i' frenzy with their iMac.

I don't know what Apple is thinking dragging themselves into a lawsuit like this, they already have enough on their hands.

This is much ado about nothing. Apple hasn't shipped a phone yet. The lawyers will work something out that may cost a bit more than it did yesterday, and someone at Apple legal may be looking through the San Jose Mercury News for work, but otherwise who cares? Whatever it's called for general release, every other phone and handheld device company knows it by a different name: BIG TROUBLE. It is doubtful that Microsoft can cram the entire bloated code of VISTA on to a phone. Short of that, since the iPhone has a complete OS-X Mac operating system, with all of that horsepower to do ANYTHING, the competitors are seriously HOSED. I will drop Verizon like a hot rock to grab a couple of these things. It integrates a lot of stuff that I carry separately now, and works seamlessly with my systems at the office, including those of our PC-based brethren. This is a seminal product, and Apple (again) will revolutionize information. Doesn't anybody ever get this: APPLE ISN'T A COMPUTER COMPANY. IT'S A COMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS COMPANY that makes hardware and software to communicate. When other companies do that, they have a prayer.

Would you be offended if you were shopping online, and purchased your beloved iPod; 4 days later you recieve a box that contains not the music iPod from Apple, but instead a network router called iPod from Cisco? I know that I would be quite irrate. Names are primarily meant to help alleviate confusion, using them to market products is onlya secondary role. This is why companies and people have rights to names, so that the confusion is minimized, it isn't so that some company can have the marketing advantage. And as far as why should Cisco sue Apple for their use of the name? It is because the laws are written and they werewritten that way for a reason. It is the same a police officer pulling you over for speeding. You may have been driving safely, but the law says that you cannot be driving that fast, and you were, so the consequences must be upheld. Don't be angry at Cisco for following the laws; if anything be angry at the laws that Apple and everyone else must abide by.

And for AppleJedi1

That report also offers an easy explanation of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' claims that the iPhone runs OS X (not Mac OS X, perhaps best understood as iPhone OS X).

"OS X’s underlying OS, Darwin, is based on BSD. The BSD kernel is small enough to fit on MP3 players and potentially electronic toothbrushes. So generally the iPhone will run OS X, albeit with a completely different UI layer. Therefore, instead of a lumpy OS like MS Mobile 5.0, it will have a real version of OS X."

But what is good for you is good for you.

Is it really a seminal product?

It doesn't do much you can't do on a well specced Ipaq or XDA.

My sony Ericsson phone has the same memory for music, it's a phone, it has a 2meg camera, it syncs with my PC, and it can play videos, albeit on a smaller screen.

The iPod changed the music industry and music distribution, this is a pretty phone. Yup sure Mac OS-X is infinitely preferable to anything by Microsoft, but Symbian was the best OS for mobiles by a long way.

Do I want one? Bloody right, but it's not the disruptive technology that the iPod was.

Cheers
Simon

Whatever happens with the whole iphone debate, I can honestly say that I am glad that Cingular will be hosting the service for iPhone. Cingular is arguably the best service provider in our nation.
I thought it was funny when these other companies try to come out with an iPhone type of mobile before Apple...like the Black Jack. I myself own a PC...but when I can afford to buy a Macintosh I will get one as quick as I can!