From: "Rich Gauszka" 

It doesn't look like it was money that Cisco was after but interoperability

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39285440,00.htm

One of the conditions of the deal was that Cisco wanted to work with Apple
to ensure interoperability among the companies' product lines, Chandler
said. While specific details of the negotiations haven't been made public,
a Cisco representative indicated on Thursday that the interoperability
clause rejected by Apple would have encompassed a range of products from
Cisco and Apple.

"In general, we were asking for the two companies to work together to
make our products and technologies more interoperable with each
other," said John Noh, a spokesman for Cisco. "In this case,
interoperability was an important consideration because, as we've said, we
see the potential for convergence of the home phone, [mobile] phone, work
phone, and the PC as limitless, and we see the network as the foundation
for innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services
consumers want."


"Dave Ings"  wrote in message
news:45a85e36{at}w3.nls.net...
> Actually this theory (open standards culture company vs closed/proprietary
> culture company) was explored in a column in either CNet or the WSJ on
> Wednesday, I forget which.
>
> However at work today we concluded over lunch :-) that all in all this
> trademark is worth more to Apple than to Cisco so at the end of the day
> Apple and Cisco will settle with a large payment to Cisco, cultural issues
> aside.
> --
> Regards,
> Dave Ings,
> Toronto, Canada
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:45a82220$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> interesting theory
>>
>> No one seems to have focused on this side of the story.
>>
>> They should; it is the truth.
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5