Re: I'm with Sanditz, there.
Sony (who call it iLink... go figure)
It was worse than that.
I was a Sony employee at the time. Word came down from On High that it was to be called i.Link (including the dot) and nothing else - we were not permitted to let on to the world at large that it was 1394.
I had to write a rebuttal to a ZDNet article years ago that claimed i.Link was a new audio codec - they seemed to have become confused about i.Link and ATRAC. I had to word it very carefully - emphasising that it was a network, not a codec, but without mentioning FireWire anywhere in my piece :-)