Wonders never cease … Goldfarb says:

“The promise of Silverlight is that it’s a cross-device, cross-browser, cross-platform solution, and it works the same on Macs as it does on Windows,” Goldfarb responded. “The iPhone is a unique scenario. We talked to our customers…and they said, ‘Look, we just need to get our content there, and it’s mainly in the media space like broadcasting, and we want to put it on the iPhone.’ They have a great solution for that; if you’re surfing the Web, and hit YouTube and hit ‘Play,’ it’ll play your video because they’ve created an environment where they can safely play media, and they’re comfortable with that.

“So we’ve worked with Apple to create a server-side based solution with IIS Media Services,” Goldfarb continued, “and what we’re doing is taking content that’s encoded for smooth streaming and enabling the content owner to say, ‘I want to enable the iPhone.’ The server will dynamically make the content work — same content, same point of origin — on the iPhone. We do this with the HTML 5 <VIDEO> tag, in many ways.”

Joseph says:

Again, it’s business and Apple can’t allow others to piggyback off of Apple trademarks. The Cisco case is a bad example because the value of Cisco’s ‘iPhone’ trademark comes no where close to Apple’s ‘iPod’ trademark – note that Apple essentially won that argument as proved by the fact that it used and uses ‘iPhone’.

And not all Apple fans have double standards. If Bill Gates told a developer to change the name of an app called MSWordRip because it violates and MS trademark, I’d have no complaints.