Apple announced their iPhone earlier this week and Cisco has sued them since they have owned that trademark for many years. Interestingly, Apple did not make a mistake by overlooking that fact. Indeed, from what I understand, Apple has been negotiating with Cisco off and on trying to avert any legal problems.

So, what's up here?

I'm in the camp that believes that all this claptrap about Cisco wanting monetary damages and stopping the iPhone is dead wrong. Cisco doesn't want royalties on iPhone. Cisco could care less about keeping the name iPhone. These theories are all wrong.

Jim Cramer, market guru and CNBC pundit, has an interesting read of the situation. "I believe that what Cisco really wants is to have Apple open up the Apple TV device -- the just-announced set-top box that streams video from your PC to your TV -- and other products for Cisco to interface with."

Cisco knows that both companies are aiming for the digital home. Presently, the only place they will compete is over the television - Apple through their new iTV initiative that creates a set-top-box and Cisco through their scientific Atlanta acquisition which is in the business of set-top-boxes.

Somewhere in there is a truth waiting to be told. As soon as I figure it out, I'll post it here.