For those who missed the torrent of 3G MicroCell news yesterday, here's the long and short of it: the Cisco-built device is now on sale, but only in Charlotte, North Carolina. One fortunate Charlottean managed to scoop one up, but rather than keeping the experience to himself, he decided to bang out a full review for the rest of the world to see. By and large, Jason's experience with the femtocell mirrored our own with Sprint's AIRAVE. Installation and setup was a breeze, and once it was booted up and operational, it worked like a charm. Before picking this up, he was seeing one bar of EDGE (if he was lucky); afterwards, his entire house was blanketed with five bars of 3G. Not surprisingly, he noted that the before and after difference when fielding calls was "night and day," but he did take the opportunity to bark at the lofty $150 price tag. But hey, those desperate enough will cough up anything to actually use their phone, right?

Zacks Investment Research is reporting in a matter-of-fact tone that AT&T's long-rumored, long-desired 3G Microcell femtocell will be hitting some markets "in the next week." The full list of initial launch areas hasn't been disclosed, but Atlanta, San Antonio, Seattle and North Carolina are all specifically mentioned; as you might recall, Sprint restricted the launch of its Airave for some time, too, so limited availability out of the gate wouldn't really come as a surprise. AT&T had no comment when asked about the report, so it's a wait-and-see game -- but if you're clinging to one bar of service, have hope that help is on the way.

Clearwire may not be as ubiquitous as you'd like it to be, but it's taking a huge step forward in hopes of wildly expanding by linking up with Cisco. In essence, the two have joined hands in order to "enhance and expand CLEAR 4G mobile WiMAX services throughout the United States," with Cisco providing the core infrastructure and Clearwire providing the guidance. Potentially more interesting is the notion that Cisco's Linksys brand will soon be delivering "new mobile WiMAX devices," such as routers that will presumably tune to WiFi and WiMAX waves. Specific product details are sorely absent, though Clearwire does reiterate that it's hoping to have WiMAX service to more than 80 markets across the US by the end of next year.

Think you use your mobile data plan a lot with 3G? Just wait 'til 4G is the pervasive protocol -- you'll be pulling down more bits and bytes than you can ever imagine. Or, at least that's the good word from Cisco. Said company has ran some sort of fancy analysis in order to forecast that global mobile traffic will increase 66-fold between 2008 and 2013, with a compound annual growth rate of 131 percent over the same period. It's stated that these projections reflect the impending transition to 4G, and if you can believe it, we'll supposedly be exceeding two exabytes per month of global mobile traffic by 2013. Curiously, it's stated that 64 percent of the world's mobile traffic will be video by 2013, but given just how slow adoption on that front has been, we're more than skeptical. For the rest of the numbers, give the read link a look.

Nokia has announced that it'll no longer be working on its own "business mobility solutions," reallocating some of the knowledge and manpower in that division over to its consumer-focused push email client that recently launched in beta form. For what it's worth, the announcement comes across not as a message that Nokia's abandoning its enterprise customers -- far from it, in fact, with the Eseries looking better than ever -- but as a genuine admission that other companies with established solutions are better cut out to manage that functionality, even on Nokia's own S60. Interestingly, Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco are all mentioned as partners with commitments to develop for Nokia's wares, but noticeably missing is RIM, whose BlackBerry Connect went missing on the E66 and E71. These days, it's hard to mention "enterprise" without also mentioning "BES" in the same sentence, so we're not too sure how far Nokia's going to get here without roping RIM back into the equation.

Here's one we didn't exactly see coming (at least not like this): Apple and Cisco have settled that "silly" lawsuit, with Apple agreeing to guarantee the exploration of "wide-ranging 'interoperability' between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications" according to the WSJ. We don't know exactly what that means, but it doesn't sound fantastic for Jobs, who we're sure wanted to have exclusivity over the name without cutting a partnership with Cisco, and didn't want to have to pay a red cent for it. But this does sound a lot like what Cisco wanted initially from Apple, and might possibly wind up in some kind of SIP / VoIP solution that allows iPhones and iPhones to communicate. Apparently both will make use of the trademark in the market (i.e. Apple's and Cisco's iPhones will both continue to be iPhones), and all's well that ends non-litigious.

[Thanks, Nick and Jay]

For those of you eagerly awaiting the result of the the iPhone trademark dispute today... well, you'll have to keep waiting. Cisco extended the time for Apple's response to its iPhone lawsuit until Wednesday, February 21st. In a statement released this morning, Cisco states that they are "fully committed to using the extra time to reach a mutually beneficial resolution." With these favored children of Silicon Valley separated by just a few miles drive, you'd think they could have hammered out an agreement over a few beers by now. But with the discussion dealing not only with trademark rights, but also with "interoperability," the settlement is likely to include more than just a one-off cash settlement.

Apparently Cisco has more "iPhone" trouble in store for it than just that prior art dispute we mentioned yesterday. In order to keep a trademark alive, you have to file a "Declaration of Use" with the US Patent and Trademark office every six years or forfeit the trademark. On 11/16/2005 Cisco missed that deadline, but was granted a six month grace period, which it just barely squeezed through. Unfortunately for Cisco, a "Declaration of Use" requires demonstration of active use, under penalty of perjury. Cisco merely slapped an iPhone sticker onto an existing VoIP handset it was producing (shown above), but at the time hadn't put an actual iPhone product on shelves for a good long while. This jeopardizes the legitimacy of the trademark, and with Ocean Telecom Services LLC -- which is thought by most to be a front company for Apple -- next in line for the name, it's looking like anyone's game at this point. But for the sake of our own sanity, can we wrap this one up soon, guys? We were kind of hoping to spend the day resting up from CES and playing that new Gears of War map pack instead of reporting such minute developments. Oh well, what are you gonna do?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Rumors are rampant as to just what Cisco wanted from Apple in exchange for some trademark sharing, and now Mark Chandler, SVP of Cisco, has weighed in with his own take on the situation. Apparently Cisco wasn't hitting up Apple for cash, asking for royalties or hedging for an IT contract -- or at least none of those were "issues at the table" and keeping them from an agreement, so there's always the slight chance a couple such bribes were already givens. Apparently what Cisco was actually out for was an "open approach," with Apple opening up its iPhone enough to allow interoperability with Cisco's offering. "We wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony." Mark's argument is that with the aggressive way Apple tends to protect its IP, even to the point of bragging about the 200+ patents in the iPhone that it plans on protecting, Apple should do Cisco more courtesy than announcing an iPhone without wrapping up talks in actual licensing -- talks which were apparently "substantive" as late as 8pm on Monday, when Cisco made its final demands. No word on how this is going forward, but it's clear something's gotta give, and Cisco's 11-year-old trademark sure looks to have the upper hand.

[Via Techmeme]

"It is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document." Not so much. We're not quite sure what broke down in talks between Cisco and Apple, but they ain't playing friendly no more. Cisco just announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Northern California to prevent Apple from infringing upon its registered iPhone trademark. The word yesterday was that Apple and Cisco had been involved in "extensive discussions," and that they were expecting Apple to sign up for whatever final agreement they proposed. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," says Mark Chandler of Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." Obviously all we've heard so far is Cisco spin on the situation, but so far it sounds like they're being fairly reasonable with Apple on this -- it is their own dang trademark after all. So what gives, Apple?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]