"Apple clearly got the better deal," Kay said. "Steve's [Jobs] ability to hypnotize people is legendary. He's like the Rasputin of the computer industry."

Technology attorney backed up the analysts on the no-surprise front, saying that trademark disputes are usually settled before going to court -- especially when the stakes are as high as in this case.

"I think everybody's a winner here," said Dort, an attorney with McGuire Woods LLP in Richmond, Va. "Apple gets a name which really tracks into its system of [trade]marks, while Cisco gets some kind of development relationship with Apple. This does well for everybody."

Another analyst, Yankee Group's Zeus Kerravala, had a different take than either Enderle or Kay. "Who gets the short stick? Well, potentially Microsoft, since this helps Cisco be more of a consumer vendor and Apple to be more of a corporate vendor."

Kerravala, however, questioned whether Cisco and Apple can actually work together, agreement or not. "Apple and Cisco each made their mark by making things vertically integrated and where they own the ecosystem from end to end," he said. "The question is, can these two companies share the spotlight to leverage each other's strengths to come out with something better?"