Cisco Channel Team Not Ready to Talk About Implications of Jury Verdict
Among those still trying to figure it all out are the executives on Cisco's channel management team.
"We're still trying to understand exactly what happened there, so to be honest with you, I'm not sure we're ready to put out an official position from a channel perspective [on] what the implications are going to be for us yet. It's still too early," said Edison Peres, senior vice president of Worldwide Channels Go-to-Market for Cisco, San Jose, Calif., during an interview with ChannelWeb on a separate topic when asked what impact the ruling would have on the way Cisco establishes contracts with its partners. "We're still trying to get an understanding and get our arms around what it actually means."
A Cisco spokesman added that the company currently had nothing to say beyond the official statements it previously released, noting that Cisco might have additional comment in the days to come.
Key to the court case, filed by former Cisco solution provider Infra-Comm, was a ruling by California Superior Court Judge Gregory Lewis that several clauses in Cisco's Indirect Channel partner Agreement are "unconscionable." Unconscionable is a term used in contract law when parts of a contract are unfair to one of the parties, typically rendering the contract unenforceable.
That ruling seemingly indicates that not only Cisco but IT vendors of all ilks will have to review and possibly modify their reseller agreements.
At least one Cisco partner is hoping Cisco Chairman and CEO John Chambers will personally address the issue with channel partners. "I hope Chambers talks candidly to the broad partner community about this without it being filtered through his organization. He needs to find out what is really going on," said the partner, who asked not to be identified.
For more reaction from the Cisco channel, see this recent blog post from CRN Editor/News Steve Burke.