IT@Cork is a not-for-profit networking organisation for IT professionals. IT@Cork organises regular information and networking events which are free for its members.
One of these events – the upcoming Web 2.0 half-day conference is the target of a cease and desist letter (below) from the legal team of O’Reilly publishers. Basically O’Reilly are claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term “Web 2.0” and therefore IT@Cork can’t use the term for its conference. Apparantly use of the term “Web 2.0” is a “flagrant violation” of their trademark rights!
Ironically I invited Tim O’Reilly to speak at this conference last February and his response (which I received on 15th of February) was
I would love to be able to do it, but my schedule is just too full for an additional international trip.
So Tim was aware of the event in February but decided to wait until 2 weeks before the conference to set the lawyers on us.
As I mentioned, IT@Cork is a not-for-profit organisation and doesn’t have the resources available to O’Reilly – what do people suggest we do?
[Disclosure – I am on the steering committee of IT@Cork and the organising committee of the Web 2.0 conference.]
Comments
361 responses to “O'Reilly trademarks "Web 2.0" and sets lawyers on IT@Cork!”
How unfortunate….
Why not invoke your predilection for Monty Python and call it “that-phase-of-the-web-that-shall-happen-before-web-3.0 (no more, no less etc etc)”.
Why not call it a Web 2.1 conference? That would make O’Reilly’s 2.0 obsolete 🙂
[…] Apparently, Web 2.0 is a trademark. CMP sent a letter to an Irish conference using the term in its name, demanding that they cease and desist. […]
How about calling it “Despite the money-grabbing lawyers” conference? IT@Cork DMGL conference.
To quote Ze Frank: “assholes”
(My emphasis)
So in other words: they don’t actually own any such mark right now, and in any case they sure as hell don’t have a registered trademark in the EU.
My suggested response:
“Bite me.”
[…] If you ever want to work for a company that spends time deriving pleasure from the misfortunes of others, look no further than an American company based in Cork. Today it emerged that O’Reilly sent a cease and desist to the IT@Cork conference for daring to use the term Web 2.0 in the title. Instead of saying “we’re behind you” the company’s blog is delighting with the news. They’ve been snapping at the heels of Tom Raftery and the rest of the IT@Cork folks for weeks now for running the conference and even trying to encourage speakers to give out about use the web 2.0 term. What a bunch of fucking assholes. […]
Unbelievable.
Brings back memories…lol
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! […]
[…] From Tom Raferty […]
[…] The great guys at O’Reilly have applied for a trademark for the term Web 2.0.. And they’ve already started sending out cease and desist letters to people using the term.. […]
O’Reilly publishing’s lawyers send cease and desist letter to IT@Cork for using …
…
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a long time. With all the Web 2.0 events happening recently, including Enterprise Irelands, I wonder have any of them received these notices?
[…] Hereafter to be referred to as Web 2.1, just to annoy Tim O’Reilly’s lawyers. Wasn’t Tim O’Reilly the one that took Jeff Bezos up on Amazon’s 1-Click patent? Asshole. « SmackBook Pro · […]
Oh, please ignore them. Just get on with the event and argue the toss afterwards. Please, for all of us.
Web 2.0 trademarked!…
I’ve just read over on Tom Raftery’s blog that O’Reilly media claim to have a pending trademark on the term Web 2.0. They have sent a notice to IT@Cork in relation to their upcoming Web 2.0 conference claiming infringement of…
Tom,
Cease and desist are standard operating practice. Ignore it and see what happens next. They would have to sue Enterprise Ireland as well as they recently used it (as you are aware). Until they register the mark you are free to do what you please (IMHO).
Joe.
Ny the way, if anyone would like to come to the conference in question, you’re all more than welcome. Anyone interested in buying t-shirts. They’ll have “Web Sue.0” on the front and the text of the C&D letter on the back?
Ummm… This could be just me, but it would appear that they have a pending application for a service mark on “Web2.0” which is quite different from “Web 2.0”. (This could be my eyes or a poor scan). It’s also pending, so it’s not likely that their TM will be approved before your event actually takes place.
Either way, given that the event is in two weeks, just discontinue any current promo material (if you’re still making any) and retitle the event “IT@Cork’s Web 2.0 half-day” on your web site and on conference hand-outs.
You have now removed the word “conference” and added your own TM to mitigate any possible confusion.
Disclaimer: IANAL
[…] Thousands of man years have been put into defining that thing some calls “web and a version number” – but no one had figured out that in reality it wasn’t more than a trademark […]
[…] Tom Raftery received a cease and desist letter from O’Reilly’s lawyers because of his use of the term “Web 2.0″ in a conference he’s putting on. The letter states that the use of the term is trademarked in connection with live events, conferences, etc. […]
[…] Has O’Reilly gone over to the Dark side? Filed under: Technology, Web, Business, Web 2.0, blog — admin at 8:40 pm on Thursday, May 25, 2006 Mixed feelings on this one: on one hand I write / blog for O’Reilly and find them good guys to work with. On the other hand, they’re threating to send in the legal heavies for the use of the Web 2.0 tag in a forthcoming Irish conference. Tom Raftery has more. Tim, what exactly are you thinking of with this move, apart from annoying your Irish customers? […]
Is that pending application for the Irish jurisdiction, too? I’ll bet it was filed for the US.
Anyone in IT@Cork with the last name of O’Reily.
You could have the O’Reily Conference!
Lets see them coming to Ireland saying they own O’Reilly.
🙂
You can always make your feelings known over at Tim’s Blog. After all, a good percentage of us are techie in some shape or form, and Techies buy O’Reilly Books.
Isn’t one of the Web 2.0 Mantras to engage with your customers? Perhaps not quite the engagement that Tom had in Mind 🙂
Obviously, they don’t own the trademark yet. I wonder if it’s possible to object to their application. I’d certainly look into it.
[…] Some of the very heavy hitters of the blog world have now given their two cents. I like Mike Arrington’s quote: Tim O’Reilly needs to muzzle his lawyers immediately and respond publicly, personally and immediately to the situation, because I sense that a lynching is about to occur in the blogosphere. […]
What a joke!!!
Web 2.0 is really pretty old hat you know.
El web 2.0 está muerto. A hablar del 2.1, que parecemos Microsoft tardando tanto entre versiones…
Estupendo. Los abogadetes de Tim O’Reilly le han enviado una carta de esas que dicen “o dejas de usar nuestra ,marca o te empapelamos” a un menda en Irlanda por lanzar una conferencia con el tÃtulo de “Web 2.0” por aquellas tierras verdes …
No ways!…
…
Web 2.0…
Hmmm…wonder if I’ll get sued?
Find out why……
[…] This is ample proof for me to conclude that Web 2.0 is a marketing term, and it is basically a way to sell conferences. […]
How about you trademark Web 3.0, just in case and start rebranding immediately. Let the new wave begin.
In fairness… why don’t they try trademark the word ‘Conference’ or put a license on fresh air. I can’t honestly see them succeeding in this case…
Surely its got no legal reach if they’re still in the application process, in particular crossing the Atlantic?
[…] Caught a post on the blog of Tom Raferty, who is heading up the IT@Cork Conference called the “IT@Cork Web 2.0 Half-Day Conference“. Seems that tech publisher Tim O’Reilly and his lawyers at CMP Media have filed a trademark app (pending approval) and are threatening IT@Cork with litigation over use of the term “Web 2.0″ as part of the title of the Irish web conference. They’ve sent a Cease and Desist to IT@Cork, claiming that it’s a “deliberate attempt” to trade off CMP’s good will (good will, no doubt built through lawsuits, eh?) and cause confusion in the marketplace. CMP also complains of unfair trade practices and unfair competition. […]
Isn’t the whole point of trademark law to protect consumers from confusion? If I heard about something called a “Web 2.0 conference” I would immediately assume it’s the Web 2.0 Conference. If I sent in my money and then found out it wasn’t the Web 2.0 conference, I’d be pissed off.
You appear to be trying to get people to come to your conference by making them think it’s a different conference which, if that’s the case, is fundamentally dishonest. I’m assuming you aren’t, and so I’d guess you thought that Web 2.0 was a generic term. This nastrygram is O’Reilly’s way of letting you know that, in the domain of conferences, Web 2.0 isn’t a generic term. If you think it is a generic term, you’ll probably need to round up your own lawyers to fight it.
Personally I hope no one ever uses the term “web 2.0” ever again, but that’s just me.
[…] Tom Raftery has posted a cease and desist letter he says the not-for-profit IT@Cork networking organisation for IT professionals received from lawyers for O’Reilly publishers demanding the organisation cease using the term Web 2.0 in the title of their upcoming conference. […]
So Tim was aware of the event in February but decided to wait until 2 weeks before the conference to set the lawyers on us.
My guess is that O’Reilly was cool with this, but that whatever vipers make up their legal department/retained lawfirm took up arms. For another example of the breed, look at the poor “Nano scratches” ex-plaintiff being sued by the class action lawyers.
[…] O’Reilly has a pending trademark on “Web 2.0″, and his lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to IT@cork telling them they can’t call their upcoming conference “Web 2.0″. […]
Oh, this reminds me…..
I am going to be rich soon. I’ve filed for a trademark on Web 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc. etc.
WTF? They can apply but getting it is a different story.
Get O’Real… O’Reilly Not to Blame for CMP Misstep…
Tim O’Reilly is taking heat for a legal move by another company….
[…] Tim O’Reilly and his pack of lawyers have sent a cease and desist notice to the conference organisers of a web 2.0 event in Ireland. Seems the term is his and nobody else better use it. The irony is Tim was invited and said he’d have loved to have gone but was too busy.read more | digg story No Tags […]
You might consider contacting O’Reilly. Do note that this is signed by CMP Media, O’Reilly’s partners at the conference, not O’Reilly themselves. Also, CMP Media looks to be the holder of the trademark application, not O’Reilly.
My response to that C&D letter would be rather harsh for their delicate ears. But until they have a valid TM or SM in Europe, they can go procreate with themselves.
[…] The day Web 2.0 Jumped The Shark. via dave […]
Eh, it sounds like the C&D came from CMP, not O’Reilly. I’d wait for Tim to weigh in on the issue before getting too upset or actually responding to the lawyer types. I’m sure he’ll make a comment on it.
Hi Tom,
there is some interesting case law whereby anything that is so engrained in popular culture, i.e Barbie, Coke etc. that it becomes hard to enforce the same level of protection on the use of it’s name. Not sure where I read it but try Naomi Klein’s “No Logo”.
To be honest, I can’t give you any legal advice, but if it were me, I’d ignore and send them some photos of Paul O’Connell. Apparently his left and right legs are named cease & desist so you could launch a counter-sue.
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! » at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views: its great to know that the “open web!” of Web 2.0 ™ does not extend to capital infusion through the use of the meme as a title for a conference that costs 4000 dollars. I called this “concept” bull shit a while back. This just proves it. […]
[…] So, as tom Raftery has reported, IT@Cork have been sent a cease and desist order in relation to their use of the term “Web 2.0″ in relation to a conference. You can read the actual letter here; page 1, page 2. […]
CMP are working with O’Reilly and O’Reilly Media approved the letter being sent to IT@Cork.
It was a complete surprise to CMP that Tim O’Reilly was aware of the event since February when he was invited to speak. Tim did not air any disapproval at that point.
The issue is around the event title containing Web 2.0 as it’s seemingly causing confusion in the market.
So what now?
Following a phone discussion with CMP earlier today, IT@Cork is awaiting an official response from CMP on the matter. Also requested was a copy of the submitted trademark application in order to understand the alleged infringement. (I sit on IT@Cork steering committee)
Seeking closure on this matter by tomorrow (Friday 26th May)
[…] As some people may be aware, Tom Raftery (a good sort, from my small dealings with him) is part of a not-for-profit group called IT@Cork. […]
This floors me, in a way. How will this affect websites that use “Web 2.0” in their descriptions?
Is it just me, or is it CMP who has set their lawyers on IT@Cork and not O’Reilly? I don’t see anywhere on there saying that it is O’Reilly who is asking for IT@Cork to C&D. Yes, CMP mentions that they created it with O’Reilly, but they state on there that it is CMP that is asking for the C&D.
I’d just ignore it, attempting to trademark something like Web 2.0 is stupid. I can understand attempting trademark their conference because they don’t want confusion. They should go for trademarking Web 2.0 Conference or some other thing that would refer specifically to the upcoming conference.
Best of luck!
[…] From Tom Raftery’s Blog: IT@Cork is a not-for-profit networking organisation for IT professionals. IT@Cork organises regular information and networking events which are free for its members. […]
With the collective power of the internet, we should all have our own Web 2.0 conference and see how much in legal bills that CMP can rack up. If a thousand of us do it, and they’re paying $250 an hour for their lawyers, then they’ll amass at least a quarter of a million in fees. Then we’ll see if they really want the Web 2.0 trademark.
Guys,
Thanks for the overwhelming support.
Just to clarify one point, I received an invite to the O’Reilly/CMP Web 2.0 conference the other day. The VIP sign-up cost for that conference (only available until June 26th) is $2795!
The IT@Cork Web 2.0 half-day conference is free to members of IT@Cork and €50 to non-members.
The use of the € and the significant price differential should be enough to ensure people don’t confuse the two events.
Wow, how can they do this to a non-profit company, maybe they just expect you to roll-over.
I was about to redesign my site as a Web 2.0 development area, this has spurred me on to plaster my site using Web 2.0 as a key term for the second generation of the Web. Can/will they sue everyone who uses the term, i dont think so..
Its just common sense that very simple collections of words shouldn’t be trademarked, unless the words are not in the english language, our dictionary should be free from corporate control..
Would they also say they are the creators of the term?
Its just greed, like all business that gets above a certain size, it will be their own downfall.
Good luck..
Totally crazy stuff. I would never expect this from O’Reilly folks.
First of all, at least in the states, you don’t need a TM registration to have rights in a mark, though you do need to obtain a registration to sue in federal court for another’s infringement of that mark. That is, even without a registration, one can still be sued under another legal theory for using an alleged mark, e.g., unfair competition.
That said, I would suggest you go ahead with the conference as scheduled and as promoted, except that you avoid using the term as part of a name for IT conferences in the future.
First of all, the only meaningful way they can stop you from using the term as a name for this conference is to go into court in Ireland (or perhaps an EU judicial body) and obtain an injunction. This is highly unlikely given the difficulties of proof and the expense (though you never know).
After your conference is over you say, well that was a load of laughs, next time we get together we’ll come up with a real snappy (and different) name for the conference.
They may threaten to sue you after the fact, but there would really be no point. To get anything out of you other than an injunction (i.e., monetary relief), they would have to show that they suffered actual damages as a result of your having put on a half-day, (practically) free conference in Cork, Ireland. A bit of a stretch.
Find a decent lawyer who will talk it over with you (for free), and then ignore the C&D and go about your work.
Screw the Patent, Move on to Web 4.0…
From Tom Raftery’s IT Views:
“IT@Cork is a not-for-profit networking organisation for IT professionals. IT@Cork organises regular information and networking events which are free for its members.
One of these events – the upcoming Web 2.0…
I’ve had an O’Reilly Safari account for several years now and just cancelled it leaving quite an earful in the cancellation reason entry field. This is insane.
Oh, and another thing.
The fact that O’Reilly himself plainly uses the term Web 2.0 as a phenomenon that is occuring in the world of the Interwebs, and not as mark that is to be associated exclusively with his conferences, speaks volumes to whether the term is a valid, protectable mark owned by CMP.
As just one example see today’s post on his blog: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/government_thinking_about_web.html
Hey, I’ve got a trademark application pending for Microsoft, O’Reilly, Sun, Coke, Ford and McDonalds.
These guys are treading on my turf…
I guess I should have kept this in my previous reply but I just did not think of it before hitting submit, sorry.
Where reasonable (obviously not in the case of this conference as it is coming up in a matter of days), it seems people should just stop using Web 2.0 altogether and we should collectively come up with something else and start using it first.
I think it’s nearly unbelievable that they are trying to enforce such a trade/service mark and that it is surely bound to fail, legally, but just in case… maybe people should make every attempt to bring the status of tue “Web 2.0” mark to useless.
Just an idea… and maybe not even a good one. *shrug*
As the owner of the Web2point1 domain and someone who held a 1/2 day unconference under that name opposite Web 2.0 Conference here in San Francisco, I would be happy to let you use the Web 2.1 name under a CC Non-commercial Share Alike license. Can also put up your content on the site – contact me via email or through the BrainJams site to discuss further.
Web 2.1 is about people, not lawyers, litigants and big money corporations.
Disclosure: I have tried to reach out to Tim on several occasions to speak directly about shared interests and passions, but have not ever received a response. He seems like a really nice guy overalll (the Wired article last November made it seem that way at least) – but he is definitely being pulled in different directions by interests beyond his control…
[…] å¼€æº?先生Tim O’Reilly已对一家é?žèµ¢åˆ©æ€§çš„ITå…¬å?¸æ??å‡ºäº†è¯‰è®¼ï¼Œå› ä¸ºè¿™å®¶å…¬å?¸è¦?开办一个有关web2.0çš„ç ”è®¨ä¼šï¼Œè€ŒTim声称自己已ç»?为Web2.0ç”³è¯·äº†å•†æ ‡ï¼Œå› æ¤ä¸?å…?许其他公å?¸ä»¥å®ƒçš„å??义æ?¥åˆ›åŠžä»»ä½•ä¼šè®®ã€‚ […]
[…] I had a post here for most of the day yesterday that, after the crazy “Web 2.0″ news of today, must seem prescient. I decided, coming back from the baseball game that it wasn’t worth the grief it would likely cause, so I took it down. […]
[…] Just when you thought it was safe, lawyers and lobbyists have taken over TechMeme: CMP Media Trademarks Web 2.0 Tim O’Reilly is being blamed, which would be deeply ironic — “Web 2.0″ is a “service mark” — gotta love that. Shel Israel hopes it’s just corporate lawyers run amok. Either way, there’s already hell to pay. […]
[…] Why the 24th? On that date, CMP working with O’Reilly Media sent a cease and desist letter to IT@Cork claiming they own the term and that they can’t use it in the title of their event: Web 2.0 half-day conference. My advice to Tom Raftery? Let CMP and O’Reilly keep the term. […]
Tom, you really need to redact this to show that it’s CMP who are making the threats here, not O’Reilly. By leaving things as they are, you’re opening yourself to a genuine defamation suit on ORA’s part.
[…] House panel votes for Net neutrality O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! Mobile Phone Number sold Towel Day :: A tribute to Douglas Adams (1952-2001) […]
How about renaming it “Web 2-point-kiss-my-ass”? 🙂
I cannot believe how stupid this is on CMP’s part. Who thinks of them when thinking of “Web 2.0”? No one. They’re reading too many of their own press releases.
Web 2.1…
Given that O’Reilly has trademarked the term "Web 2.0"…
I believe at this point I no longer have a need for oreilly books. So about -$400/year to you O’Reilly. I hope others do the same. If that is how you do business, you don’t need to be in business.
The validity of a granted US trademark in Ireland probably depends on the conference markting: if you’re marketing the event in the US to US residents then probably a US trademark infringement is happening.
If you’re just inviting a speaker, then it could ne less clear. And a pending trademark application also makes it unclear.
There’s some interesting stuff on Crate and Barrell, Ireland, and trademark infringments in the UK here.
Has Rupert Murdoch sued O’Reilly yet for using one if his character’s names?
Check http://www.uspto.gov and search web2.0
What they’re applying for is a style mark. eBAY has BuyItNow as a style mark and the registration reads (makes no claim to the words Buy It Now) but rather the unique way in which they style them… three little dashes.
The application for the mark is clearly non-discriptive and would not stand the test of being opposition.
As an applicant they have an obligation to defend thier use of the mark. HOWEVER, the issue of first use comes into play. If you can prove that you or anybody else has used the mark for similar reasons prior to thier filing then you would clearly win.
The C&D doesn’t mean a thing… and I agree with the other posters. The application is US based.. there might be some arguement that even the event is held internationally that the organization behind it is US based… but not much…
My two cents…
[…] If you’re one of those people that will listen to an Om Malik podcast, today is a sad day. But if you’re the type that throw up a little bit every time you hear the words web-two-point-oh, this could be a very happy day indeed. What the hell am I talking about? Well, I’ve forecasted the Web 2.0 apocalypse being ushered in by the granting of a singular request: an enforceable Web 2.0 service mark. I just read the cease and desist order sent to IT@Cork, and it’s a start. […]
[…] There are two problems with today’s shit-storm over the term “web 2.0.” […]
[…] PatentujÄ… „web 2.0″! Kto? O’Reilly i CMP Media. W takim wypadku zagrożona jest również konferencja „Witamy Web 2.0 w Polsce!”, która ma odbyć siÄ™ w Warszawie, w dniu 14.06.2006. ProponujÄ™ zamiast „web 2.0″ mówić/pisać/myÅ›leć: „Web NxG”. Jakby coÅ›, to byÅ‚em (chyba) pierwszy. I udostÄ™pniam nazwÄ™ na licencji CreativeCommons Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 😉 Nie wiem tylko czy licencje CC mogÄ… chronić nazwy? W każdym razie róbcie z nazwÄ… co chcecie 😉  […]
[…] Escrito por csr el 26 May 2006 a las 09:31 am | Archivado como: Leído por ahí… Ojito con utilzar el término más odiado/amado de la red: parece ser que O’Reilly ha registrado la marca. O sea que, a partir de ahora, Web 2.0™…. Fuente. […]
Put it in front of a blogging lawyer. If you don’t know one I can recommend. As I see it:
1. Not TM registered
2. Application for registration – not yet granted
3. US law – does it apply in Eire? I doubt it.
Prior knowledge of the event with no indication of an ‘issue’ counts heavily against them. It’s not on their turf.
But hey – it’s CMP – what do you expect from mainstream media that accuses one if its interviewees as ‘potentially libellous without checking the facts?
I believe it’s about time someone comes up with a sexier, less geeky name as Web 2.0 to represent what-the-web-sould-always-have-been-inthe-first-place”, build a consesus around this natural-sounding name name and have it protected by means of OSDL patent commons.
Web 2.0 Trademark?…
It seems “Web 2.0” is about to be trademarked by O’Reilly: One of these events – the upcoming Web 2.0 half-day conference is the target of a cease and desist letter (below) from the legal team of O’Reilly publishers. Basically O…
Were I in Tom’s shoes and I received this letter I would carry on with my plans as previously laid out, until I got a response to a polite letter asking
“What service mark, in what jurisdiction, please?�
Without knowing that you can’t assess the strength or weakness of the claim.
The argument has been going on for some time now.
[…] Apparently the term Web 2.0 has been trademarked by O’Reilly Publishers, who I have unfortunately never heard of. My best idea on how to solve Tom’s problem: start using the term “Web 2.5″ to usher in yet another new period of the web, and call the conference the Web 2.5 conference. That will probably make the O’Reilly people really angry. […]
[…] Evidentemente parece ser que se puede registrar una idea o concepto ¿no? ( Via, Gracias Juan ) […]
[…] I’m hoping there’s been a few crossed wires and misunderstandings surrounding O’Reilly’s lawyers issuing a Cease and Desist against use of the term Web 2.0. O’Reilly are the “Google” of publishing, surely they can do wrong? Geeks worldwide take a pride in their bulging shelves of O’Reilly tomes bedecked in animal engraved covers. There’s a few people venting their frustration in comments on Tim O’Reilly’s blog, but surely some sort of official clarification must be coming! […]
O`Reilly registra la marca Web 2.0!!…
Parece ser que O’Reilly ha registrado la marca web 2.0…¿Donde vamos a llegar?
Explicacion de O’Reilly (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/controversy_about_our_web_20_s.html)…
O’Reilly vs The Community…
This is a farce, completely unbelievable, and totally wrong – as Paul says!!
Just did a check, I have……
[Blog] O’Reilly invented something we can’t talk about…
…
[…] http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web-20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/ Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
What a tit. I can’t believe they are trying trademark such a common term. It’s like trying to trademark “Blog”.
My advice, send this to every journalist in the IT arenas you can think of in both Europe and the US. Nothing makes a great story like a big company beating up on the little guy, and there’s nothing worse than bad PR for a big company.
Well, ‘I told you so’ is a bit of a waste of time, so I won’t bother. A few colleagues here in DSI have blogged about how cynical this whole Web 2.0(sm?) thing has been. But regardless of how we felt about the term Web 2.0, I don’t think we would have objected to anyone using it with the right intentions.
As far as I am concerned, they have just signalled the death knell for Web 2.0(sm?). There is bound to be a backlash from the Internet community in general and hopefully use of the term Web 2.0 will cease, not because of powerful lawyers, but because the Internet community have better things to be worrying about.
If I were in your shoes I would not use Web 2.0. Not to appease the men in suits, but because you can come up with something more meaningful like “Profit from new e-business processes” or “How new Internet technologies can drive your business forward”, etc, etc.
Tim O’Reilly considered harmful?…
Oh, the irony, from the company which has made its money around open source. I agree with one of the comments on that post, arguing for Web 2.1; in fact, I’d prefer Web 2.1a-beta….
Legal insanity in Web 2.0-land…
Tom Raftery reproduces a letter from lawyers acting on behalf of CMP Media LLC over on his blog. Tom is involved in organising an event in Cork on 8 June and this event, like a large number of others,……
[…] Or Tom Raftery’s entry – plus comments… […]
I’d left a message for Tim O’Reilly about this on his blog.
This is the Official O’Reilly Response.
I really hate it when large corporations use scare-tactics like that. They really don’t seem to have a case at all, their SN/TM is “pending” and it is in the US so as I see it they don’t really have a case at all. They are just hoping that they can scare the wee Irish into submission.
I say ignore them and shout about this enough that Tim O’Reilly will be embarassed enough to wade in and put and end to this farce!
Bart.
O´Reilly Wants to Own The Trademark for The Term “Web 2.0″…
Web 2.o is about user generated content, and this content is owned by the user, not by a single company, organisation or person. Nevertheless, Tom Raftery got an unpleasant mail. One of these events – the upcoming Web 2.0 half-day…
100 comments! Wow! It looks like that’s the end of the Whatchimacallit 2.0 bubble…
[…] It’s rare you see an Irish blogger as No 1 on Techmeme. I hope Tom has the bandwidth! […]
It’s ironic that it’s what this supposed Web 2.0 thing is supposed to be all about that could actually kill Web 2.0. All over the world, as we speak, people are blogging about the death of Web 2.0.
Is O’Reilly One of the good guys? Maybe ……
As an Irish O’Reilly Blogger , I have mixed feelings around the controversy on the Web 2.0 name. The original story is here, about a Web 2.0 conference organised by friends of mine in Cork , Ireland. The O’Reilly response……
[…] In case that you still wondering about the meaning of “web 2.0”, and you can’t determine what is it exactly, you should consider another explanation. I would suggest that you consider the possibility that “web 2.0” was , and still is, a marketing slogan to sell conferences . Marketing, Slogan, Web 2.0 […]
Does anyone have a list of the people who would shell out for the IT@Cork Web 2.0 Conference in the belief that it was ‘the’ (?) Web 2.0 Conference?
They’d just pop off a cheque without looking at who was going to be speaking for how long about what specific topics?
My dear friend Miriam Abacha from Nigeria would like to approach them for assistance in getting GRILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the country.
O’Reilly Trademarks “Web 2.0”!…
Tom Raftery on O’Reilly trademarks ‘Web 2.0’ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork!……
[…] I seriously love the things that come out of controversies about words. It wasn’t enough to bash the term ‘Web 2.0′ when it became popular, but now that even the haters have been turned around, it resurfaces with the CMP/O’Reilly controversy now raging. The simple, and most correct conclusion to jump to, according to the comments on the O’Reilly Radar at least, is that O’Reilly is inherently “evil,” confirming quiet suspicions many commenters have had for a while, and that “it doesn’t understand Web 2.0″. The latter I find particuarly humourous; it’s like me telling Orville Wright that he doesn’t ‘get’ flying – the concept might have been expanded on since 1903, but how can I tell the guy that invented it that, sorry, he just don’t understand it? […]
I’d tell them, verbatim: “Go fuck yourselves” and go ahead with the event
[…] The controversy over CMP Media’s cease-and-desist letter over use of the term ‘Web 2.0′ is spreading like wildfire. And well it should. As many have now said, the move is poor judgment on just so many levels. Let’s count them. (Full disclosure: I’m one of the founders of a conference earlier this month on Web 2.0. The phrase attracted enough enmity before this debacle – the geekworld will quickly abandon it now, I suspect). […]
Via The Inquirer:
“Sara Winge, our VP of Corporate Communications, asked me to post this:
The blogosphere has been buzzing today about O’Reilly sending a cease-and-desist letter to IT@Cork, demanding (yes, that’s the legal term) that they not use “Web 2.0” in the title of their conference. I’d like to give the O’Reilly perspective, and clear up a few things. You’d be hearing from Tim, but he’s off the grid, on a (rare) vacation.
O’Reilly and CMP co-produce the Web 2.0 conference. “Web 2.0” was coined when we were brainstorming the concept for the first conference in 2003. As noted in the letter to IT@Cork (sent from CMP’s attorney, but with our knowledge and agreement), “CMP has a pending application for registration of Web 2.0 as a service mark, for arranging and conducting live events, namely trade shows, expositions, business conferences and educational conferences in various fields of computers and information technology.” To protect the brand we’ve established with our two Web 2.0 Conferences, we’re taking steps to register “Web 2.0” as our service mark, for conferences. It’s a pretty standard business practice. Just as O’Reilly couldn’t decide to launch a LinuxWorld conference, other event producers can’t use “Web 2.0 Conference,” the name of our event. In this case, the problem is that it@cork’s conference title includes our service mark “Web 2.0,” which the law says we must take “reasonable steps” to protect. We’ve also contacted another group that has announced a “Web 2.0 Conference” in Washington, DC this September.
In retrospect, we wish we’d contacted the IT@Cork folks personally and talked over the issue before sending legal correspondence. In fact, it turns out that they asked Tim to speak at the conference, though our Web 2.0 Conference team didn’t know that. We’ve sent a followup letter to Donagh Kiernan, agreeing that IT@Cork can use the Web 2.0 name this year. While we stand by the principle that we need to protect our “Web 2.0″ mark from unauthorized use in the context of conferences, we apologize for the way we initially handled the issue with IT@Cork.”
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/controversy_about_our_web_20_s.html
Congrats for Enrique
Call it Webby
[…] The lads over at CMP who are affiliated with O’Reilly have stirred up a hornet’s nest. They are claiming ownership over the use of Web 2.0 in the title of conferences and events. So nobody but O’Reilly and CMP will be able to put Web 2.0 in their conference title. This issue came to the fore when CMP issued the IT@Cork lads a cease and desist letter for their use of Web 2.0 in their IT@Cork Web 2.0 Conference. A number of bloggers have responded and O’Reilly have made their thoughts known. […]
A Darker Side of O’Reilly …
I was more than a bit surprised to see a company I have a lot of respect for acting the complete prick and bullying and Irish IT conference because they are using the term Web2.0 in their title. Regardless of what O’Reilly think I really don’t thin…
That really is a terrible move by CMP and by association, O’Reilly.
I am going to wear wear this t-shirt we just made to the conference in protest.
[…] Tom reports that he received a Cease and Desist letter from O’Reilly regarding the use of the term Web 2.0. […]
[…] Rick Segal has by far the best post so far regarding Web-2.0-Gate. Third, always leave room for conspiracy theorists. In this case, Sara gets some points. As the VP of Corporate Communications, what better way to give the company even more room to wiggle around, then to have the big guy himself on a “rareâ€?, off the grid, vacation. Brand currently burning like a Turkish Airport? Simple. Be off the grid, let the corporate PR person take a few bullets, then simply glide back in all rested, ready to show (in no particular order) horror, remorse, and a determination to ensure these types of things don’t happen again. […]
tom,
whatever goodwill o’reilly had within the community, it just disappeared. keep on doing the good things that you’re doing and maybe “web 2.0” will disappear from the lexicon so we can all move forward.
cheers, mark
It’s been quite a buzz over the blogosphere about this web 2.0 thing. Yet I like the way the guys @ o’reilly took care of it! Official excuses for the initial reaction is a good sign that they don’t “own” something that is actually ours (web 2.0 is not a “brand” only, it’s an “age” we live now into). Yeah, good stuff.
So, about all the hatred towards the big corporations … here is one corporation that looks like they are OK even with the use of their brand in others’ conference. I think it’s all going the right way 🙂
C’est navrant mais l’internet est des fois plus une question d’argent que de partage d’information
Web2.0 : une marque déposée
Open-source trademarks…
Kill the father! The blogospheric lynch mob is out for Tim O’Reilly. His crime? Trademark enforcement. A few years ago, O’Reilly and his business partner came up with a brilliant name for a new conference: the Web 2.0 Conference. They dutifully did w…
This is going to be one long page with all those pingbacks!
I hope the server can cope with all that traffic 🙂
It just demonstrates the power of blogging.
[…] Help on Subscribing « O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! […]
[…] Kennelijk kan iedereen die het woord Web 2.0 in zijn mond neemt binnenkort een stukje toiletpapier van O’Reilly Media verwachten. Een Ierse conferentie kreeg namelijk een leuke brief van O’Reilly’s advocaat dat zij het trademark op de term bezitten (vanwege de eerste Web 2.0 Conference). En dus was het een typisch ‘cease and desist’ gevalletje voor deze nerds, aldus O’Reilly. […]
Uh, “members of the industry and interested members of the public have come to associate the mark Web2.0 and the Web2.0 Conferences with CMP and Medialive”?
Uh, no. I didn’t even know there was such a thing, and naturally didn’t know that it was anything to do with those particular corporate bullies. I actually thought – and I’m certainly a “member of the industry” – that “Web 2.0” was just a stupid buzzword used by wankers.
Wankers … lawyers … what is difference?
Jinfoo,
C’est tout à fait le cas. Mais c’est délirant de voir autant d’attention dédiée à un concept aussi aveugle. Je suis vraiment content de voir que la raison primaire derrière tout ce bordel est de l’argent, des sous et de la tune. Ca ne vaut vraiment pas la peine de parler du Oueb Deux-Point-Zéro, parlons de la technologie :)! Parlons du AJAX, des blogs, de l’interactivité mais n’essayons pas de les mettre dans un même sac comme s’ils était magiquement liés.
[…] We all know that O’Reilly of tech books fame is the one who first used the term “Web 2.0″ to describe the way the web has matured and how interactivity between a website and its audience is the future of the web. The term, as a GENERIC term to describe the phenomena, has been used everywhere, even on this blog. So it came as a surprise to a small group of IT professionals in Ireland when their free half day conference, to which they invited Tim O’Reilly to speak early on, received a cease and desist letter from CMP, O’Reilly’s legal partners in the Conference, requiring that IT@Cork stop using the term “Web 2.0″ to refer to the conference. This letter came two weeks before the scheduled conference. […]
Web The Next (TM)…
The only thing funnier than Something Awful’s take on Web 2.0 is O’Reilly’s take on the upcoming IT……
This is completely ridiculous and sad. I would rename the conference Web 2 point 0 last minute, and be free and clear of any infringment.
Peut-être web2.0 est sur le point de décourvrir que c’est pas la chute, c’est l’atterrissage qui compte.
[…] Web 2.0(TM) O’ReillyMay26 Уважаеми уеб-дизайнери, време е за нова Ñ?тъпка напред в еволюциÑ?та на интернет уÑ?лугите. Време е да положим оÑ?новите на Web 2.01b. СамиÑ?Ñ‚ аз не знаÑ? какви принципи и дизайнерÑ?ки решениÑ? ще залегнат в това ново поколение уеб-решениÑ?, но едно поне е Ñ?игурно, нÑ?ма да бъдете Ñ?ъдени от издателÑ?тво O’Reilly. Защото наÑ?коро Ñ?тана Ñ?Ñ?но, че популÑ?рното IT издателÑ?тво е региÑ?трирало “Web2.0″ като търговÑ?ка марка и Ñ?е зае активно да отбранÑ?ва правата Ñ?и Ñ?рещу вÑ?еки, който Ñ?мее да използва този термин. Това включва и организациÑ?та Ñ? идеална цел IT@Cork, коÑ?то Ñ?е занимава Ñ? организиране на Ñ?ъбираниÑ? и конференции за IT мрежови Ñ?пециалиÑ?ти, на коÑ?то O’Reilly Ñ?а приÑ?ÑŠÑ?твали в миналото. ПредÑ?тоÑ?щата полу-дневна конференциÑ? “Web 2.0″ на IT@Cork обаче е на път да не Ñ?е Ñ?ÑŠÑ?тои, поради пиÑ?мо от правниÑ? отдел на O’Reilly, Ñ? което те Ñ?е заканват да предприемат Ñ?ъответните дейÑ?твиÑ?, ако използването на термина не бъде Ñ?прÑ?но моментално. КопиÑ? от пиÑ?мото: […]
O RLY?
!http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg!
[img]http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg[/img]
How about… stop using stupid made up phrases that mean nothing.
[…] A few of us were so busy drinking nice red wine and chatting about Web 2.0 yesterday that we didn’t notice O’Reilly attempting to protect the use of “Web 2.0″ as a service mark and prevent its use in conjunction with a 3rd party conference. […]
It obviously does mean something though and we should deal with it as such.
What does it mean? Who decides if a Web site or an application is Web 2.0? Obviously it’s not a technology, so how do you become Web 2.0? Is Google mail Web 2.0? Or Yahoo Mail Beta? Or Wikipedia, is it Web 2.0?
Here is a tip for Tim O’Reilly:
Pull back the covers, get out of the bed, put the money on the dresser, and get the hell out of the motel room.
http://theheadlemur.typepad.com/ravinglunacy/2006/05/web_20_and_stan.html
[…] 故事的å?‘ç”Ÿæ˜¯è¿™æ ·çš„ […]
Absolutely amazing — O’Reilly just lost a fan. Don’t let them to intimidate you — stand firm….
– Nathan
[…] Companies really should think about the repurcussions before they send off Cease and Desist letters. […]
Web 2.0 trademark…
The attempt to trademark Web 2.0 (in reference to conferences) would be comical if it didn’t provide such a clear contrast between prevailing thoughts on content creation and online connection-forming. Web 2.0 is (in theory) about sharing, building on…
[…] While we’ve all been accepting web 2.0 with open arms, the O’Reilly team has been silently waiting with a big smile. All this time, they’ve been waiting to announce that web 2.0 belongs exclusively to them and that others mustn’t use it and day-before-yesterday, they just did it! Recently many groups have been organizing web 2.0 conferences and one such conference conducted by IT@Cork has been prohibited from using web 2.0 in it’s name. CMP, who are the joint ‘namers’ of web 2.0 sent a legal notice claiming that web 2.0 belongs to them. The irony here is that, the IT@Cork team even invited Tim O’Reilly to speak at the conference but he declined politely and then after two weeks set the lawyers on IT@Cork, a non-profit, company. […]
They have a trademark in the US, not in Ireland. Use it; not much they can do about it.
[…] The irony is that the whole concept of “web 2.0 is” about technology changing things such that community, sharing and openness becomes apart of the new web. And now they have claimed intellectual property over the term “WEB 2.0″ and sued a little guy in Ireland, who is a new father to boot. If you want to read more – here is the blog of the guy who received the cease and desist letter and here is the official corporate response from O’Reilly Media. My prediction is that O’Reilly will completely back down and apologize before the end of the day today. […]
Unfortunately, CMP *does* own the trademark to Web 2.0 (note the space) in the EU. You can search for it http://oami.europa.eu/en/default.htm.
But they’re still being ridiculous, considering they only registered it in March, and this was already planned at that point.
Get your own “Tim O’Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole” graphic for you blog here: http://digg.com/technology/Your_Own_Tim_O_Reilly_Original_Web_2.0_Asshole_Graphic
Better yet, here’s the code, feel free to borrow and paste it into your own blog. It’s Creative Commons licensed.
Get your own “Tim O’Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole” graphic for you blog here: http://digg.com/technology/Your_Own_Tim_O_Reilly_Original_Web_2.0_Asshole_Graphic
“Web2.0″ (℠)…
法律這種æ?±è¥¿ç¸½æ˜¯è®“人猜ä¸?é€?…
今天發生了一件說大ä¸?大ã€?說å°?å?ˆä¸?å°?的事，是有關 “web 2.0″ 的；事情的原委是這樣：有一家å?«å?š IT@Cork çš„å…¬å?¸è¾¦äº†ä¸€å€‹ “Web 2.0 Half Day Conferenc…
[…] Tom Raftery – who I know is a decent man, has had a ‘cease and desist‘ order slapped on him by O’Reilly/CMP Media. Tom made the seemingly fatal mistake of naming a small half day conference due to be held 8th June in Cork ‘Web 2.0.’ […]
[…] I can’t find a statement from Cory on his good buddy Tim – suing Tom Raftery – who is now MY good buddy, since I did a podcast with him, met him in Dublin at a Web 2.0 event and will be going to Cork – in November to speak. […]
Web 2.0 is only valuable as a term if other people use it, therefore lets just pick another name.
In fact lets start here
[…] Web 2.0 Podcast lectures for uni students Bill Ashraf, senior lecturer in microbiologia alla Bradford University, ha detto che trasformerà le sue lezioni in aula in un sistema che userà podcast e blog Up in arms over who owns ‘Web 2.0′ O’Reilly contro IT@Cork, rea di ave usato il termine Web 2.0 in un trade show O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! Ecco il punto di vista di IT@Cork (con relativa lettera di dissuasione della O’Reilly) How to build a bulletproof startup Interessante articolo di Business 2.0 su come progettare una startup di successo Pandora: How to Rip and Save Pandoras Music to MP3 Files for Free Tutorial per trasformare i file di Pandora in MP3 liberamente usabili […]
I agree that this type of action is offensive. Keep in mind that a US registration generally applies only in the US. Therefore, even if they have a valid right, they can’t reach beyond the US to enforce it. They could only restrict you from marketing in the US. Also, their registration applies only to live events, conferences, etc., and does not apply to use of the term in other ways. The US has a first to use rule, so that if you used the term in the US before their registration (for the above purposes), you have superior rights. While their registration is pending, others can oppose their application, and you may wish to consider doing so. Generally, their mark is very weak since they have to disclaim the use of “web” apart from as shown in the application. BTW, you can find the application on the http://www.uspto.gov site (you have to do a search). You should be able to use the term Web 2.0 as long as you don’t name or refer to your event with it (even if they have valid rights) – ie, as long as you don’t use the term “in a trademark sense”. In sum, this may be more of an annoyance, but you shouldn’t ignore it unless you clearly understand your rights and potential consequences. Good luck.
Perhaps simply Web2 ? Would this get around their trademark ? Its as close to the original as possible. Whilst I think its nearly pathetic to be thinking of a new name, if everyone adopted a new name, it would really be ‘in their face’ 🙂
[…] I guess it had to happen eventually, but O’Reilly/CMP has really fumbled with their sending of a nastygram regarding use of the Web 2.0 term by another conference. This is a prime example of the dangers of allowing lawyers to have too much freedom. The damage to their reputation caused by this has to far exceed any value they could derive from “owning” the term Web 2.0. Sure they’re required to defend their service mark or they loose it, in this case maybe loosing it is just what they should have allowed to happen. This is a massive mistep and it’s unfortunate to see a company that has been so highly respected make such a foolish and obvious mistake. […]
how about ceasing and desisting buying anymore of those crappy o’reilly books..!!!
Slots…
Slots Phentermine Casinos …
Web 2.0 trademarked for events…
If you’re ever involved in arranging “trade shows, expositions, or business conferences” with “Web 2.0″……
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply […]
the web formerly know as that phrase we can’t say now
welcome web 3.0 !! ( hey that’s mine now, noone can use it!!!! )
[…] Hati-hati jika memasang logo web 2.0, bisa-bisa akan dituntut (paling tidak untuk saat ini). […]
The letter says that they have applied for the trademark on the term Web2.0 in the category of ‘conferences and events’. This is very different than applying for the general term. What they’re saying is that they own (or hope to) the term Web2.0 as the title of a conference.
At the risk of saying something unpopular (ducks for cover) I’d say they have a point. You’ve named your conference the same thing as theirs, and what they’re saying is that’s not okay.
Their request for a trademark could be declined (whichever country it covers) as Web 2.0 is such a widely used term these days that it may be ‘untrademarkable’. If this happens then the floodgates are open. We can all have our own Web 2.0 conferences.
Name the conference Z.O No one will notice.
Post Web 1.0?
Web1.9 1?
Until now, I was under the impression that O’Reilly was a clean company – but with the CMP ownership, I guess corporate greed and fear fuelled by lawyers are now calling the shots.
Time to boycott O’Reilly – after all, they are the parasites of the Open Source….any thoughts on this..after all, if Gray Davis, Governor of CA could be brought down, why not O’Reilly and we, the readers who made O’Reilly can “unmake” them!!
How can they do this….
now another reason to not bother buying oreilly books…
[…] read more | digg story […]
Great move Tim. Create a keyword “Web 2.0”, wait for people to start using it and then sue them. I am loosing respect for the Oreilly company…sigh…
IMHO, just call the conference WEB 2.1 as someone suggested.
Go Monty Python!
Web 2.1 sounds good to me.
[…] story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> […]
In the wake of today’s news, I have thrown away some books. I have also put the tech workd on notice that I have trademarked the term Web 2.1.A. See this link for details:
http://www.effengud.com/web21a/index.htm
Defending O’Reilly…
Looks like the whole blogosphere is abuzz over O’Reilly’s cease-and-desist letter that was sent to the organizers of a Web 2.0 Half Day Conference. O’Reilly and CMP, organizers of the “real” Web 2.0 Conference, demanded t…
[…] Looks like the whole blogosphere is abuzz over O’Reilly’s cease-and-desist letter that was sent to the organizers of a Web 2.0 Half Day Conference. O’Reilly and CMP, organizers of the “real” Web 2.0 Conference, demanded that IT@Cork, organizers of the “other” Web 2.0 conference, stop using the term “Web 2.0″ in conjunction with conferences, seminars and other such events. […]
Um… Maybe stick a (r) thingie after it, and attribute the trademark to O’Reilly?
Isn’t that what you usually do with a trademark?
Well O’Reilly did coin the term. If they don’t want you to use it for your conference, come up with a new name. Web 2.0 is so overused anyways. Anyways, O’Reilly isn’t a bad company, it’s not like this is Microsoft comming down on you for a word in the dictionary. Not everything has to be a big fight.
So I can actually trademark “CocaCola 2.0”, “Pepsi 2.0”, or “Webcam 2.0”, and “Ethernet 2.0”, and …..
What a mess, doesn’t sound right to me.
Thorsten
[…] Here’s the story. So if we use the new popular term “Web 2.0″ which signifies the next generation of web design and interfacing, O’Reilly (the publishing company) can choose to send us a Cease and Desist letter (or sue us if we ignore the letter). I have a lot of O’Reilly’s web books from PHP/mySQL to Perl. They publish really thorough and easy to read books, but I had no idea they coined the term. I searched on USPTO’s web site and here’s the trademark application. […]
The Web 2.0 Trademark Debacle…
There has been a bit of controversy over O’Reilly’s “Web 2.0” service mark cease-and-desist letter and……
[…] While Irish bloggers are busy waffling about a cease and desist letter. PR bloggers created their own storm in a tea cup last week about the launch of the Social Media press release by Shift Communications. […]
[…] 法律å†?次被è¯?明是有钱有势阶层耀æ¦æ‰¬å¨?的工具，国内国外一般黑。这回的主角是被大家天天挂在嘴边，甚至有时å?šæ¢¦ä¹Ÿæƒ¦è®°ç?€web 2.0的这个大å??的使用æ?ƒã€‚事情的原委很简å?•ï¼Œæœ‰ä¸ªåœ¨çˆ±å°”å…°å?«IT@Corkçš„é?žèµ¢åˆ©ç»„织想è¦?æ?žä¸€ä¸ªå?«”Web 2.0 half-day conference”，本æ?¥æ˜¯æŒºå¹³å¸¸çš„ä¸€ä»¶äº‹ã€‚è¿™å¹´å¤´ï¼Œæ»¡å¤§è¡—å† ä»¥Web 2.0的多如牛毛，但ä¸?知何故，这个会主办者接到æ?¥è‡ªCMP(他们和O’Reillyå…¬å?¸ä¸€èµ·å’ŒåŠžWeb2.0大会)律师的è¦å‘Šä¿¡ï¼Œè¯´ä»€ä¹ˆIT@Corkä¾µæ?ƒäº†ã€‚ç?†ç”±æ˜¯Web2.0这个在Googleä¸èƒ½æŸ¥åˆ°812,000,000æ?¡ç›¸å…³è¿žæŽ¥çš„çƒé—¨è¯?已被他们注册，并振振有è¯?地è¦?求IT@Cork在马上把Web2.0çš„å—çœ¼ä»Žä¼šè®®æ ‡é¢˜ä¸åŽ»æŽ‰ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸”è¦?书é?¢ä¿?è¯?以å?Žä¸?会å†?犯类似错误。 […]
[…] Well this pretty much sucks… link via Om O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! » at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views: Basically O’Reilly are claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term “Web 2.0″ and therefore IT@Cork can’t use the term for its conference. Apparantly use of the term “Web 2.0″ is a “flagrant violationâ€? of their trademark rights! Posted in Uncategorized || […]
Doesn’t it say that they’ve applied for a trademark. Does simply filing the application give them rights over it. I would imagine–although I’m not a lawyer–that you can use it until the application is approved.
Attempting to trademark “Web 2.0” sounds about as reasonable as trying to trademark “Web”. We’ll have to see what happens with that application…
Will they also go after everyone else using the term “Web 2.0”?
http://www.web2con.com/
http://web20workgroup.com/
http://web2.0validator.com/
http://web2.0awards.org/
http://www.web20show.com/
Some pretty good discussion about the purported origins of the term at http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html
Actually, it sounds like this issue was resolved with O’Reilly already? See http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html
O’Reilly did not coin the term. As far as I can tell, a writer named Darcy DiNucci did in July 1999. There may be earlier uses of the term than this, but I couldn’t find them.
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/383501-1.html
Everyone, please stop saying Tim O’Reilly coined the term “Web 2.0.”
As a lawyer friend says, ‘TM’ stands for ‘totally meaningless’ and ‘SM’ for ‘still meaningless’.
Ignore the bastards.
Let this guy in his stupid world, continue using WEB2.0 if we want, and forget him !!
With luck, he’ll disappear of the internet network one day, asap !
This is very much like the Microware vs Apple lawsuit over OS 9.
It is impossible to trademark a version number.
[…] Now Tim O’Reilly’s lawyers have claimed they have filed copyrights on the term and have sent a cease and desist letter to Tom Raftery whose producing and promoting the event. Perhaps this is Tim’s surprise gift to Tom who should be celebrating today with his 72-hour-old baby. […]
[…] According to Tom Raftery and I quote from his blog: One of these events – the upcoming Web 2.0 half-day conference is the target of a cease and desist letter (below) from the legal team of O’Reilly publishers. Basically O’Reilly are claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term “Web 2.0″ and therefore IT@Cork can’t use the term for its conference. Apparantly use of the term “Web 2.0″ is a “flagrant violationâ€? of their trademark rights! […]
[…] The blogosphere is buzzing today about O’Reilly Media’s actions regarding use of a term in a conference name. Not just any term – Web 2.0. Some people consider the term hype, while others think it speaks of a promising, inclusive future. I’ve been in the latter group myself. But that changed today. I think this will be a pivotal moment in the evolution of Web 2.0. O’Reilly has softened their tone toward Tom Raftery and his conference, but their litigious impulse is telling. Its a view point of scarcity, not abundance. And I’ve always considered Web 2.0 to be about abundance. The term has lost its meaning now. As Don Hopkins says, time to move on. The term is about clinched fists holding on to a marketable idea and squeezing every ounce of Kool Aid out of the buzz. abundance scarcity2.0 web2.0 […]
[…] Basically O’Reilly are claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term “Web 2.0″ and therefore IT@Cork can’t use the term for its conference. Apparantly use of the term “Web 2.0″ is a “flagrant violationâ€Â? of their trademark rights!read more | digg story […]
Again – they have applied for the trademark in respect to ‘conferences and events’ not the general term. This means that they can only stop people using the name for ‘conferences and events’. And I presume only in the US, since it’s near impossible to trademark a well-used phrase within a certain industry here in the UK.
I think the Web 2.0 working group is safe 🙂
Even from a pure commercial perspective “lets make money”… this is difficult to understand. Besides being very bad publicity and the fact that maybe the Adaptive path should actually be holding this patent, besides the fact that it seems to go against everything you championed in the past… Commmercially the more web 2.0 conferences there are (even outside the O’Reilly umbrella) the more book sales it will generate. What if someone had ‘service marked’ telephone 100 years ago.
Hope this gets sorted in IT@Corks favour. Break a leg Tom. Don Crowley
As someone whose main business is in another industry, the naivete of the internet world in the matter of intellectual property is amusing. This is just the way it works, folks.
At any rate, the USPTO TARR record is here:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=ed0f7d.3.1
and the TDR records and PDFs of all the paperwork are linked from that page.
Filed November 3, 2003, published for opposition September 13, 2005, allowed December 6, 2005. It’s all over.
There’s nothing particularly nefarious about this application. If you don’t like the law, you’re going to need to change it. But I’d get on with my life, since IP law is so bound up in treaties that it takes forever to change.
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0? and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! […]
You know Mike I think you’re missing the point here
[…] WyglÄ…da na to, że planowany z nbw na lato event bÄ™dziemy musieli przenieść z WrocÅ‚awia nad morze i przemianować na Å?eba 2.0™ (nazwa jest nasza i nie ważcie siÄ™ jej użyć bez pisemnej zgody!). A to wszystko ze strachu przed tym, że pozwie nas Tim (nie, nie ten z Monty Pythona). […]
Off the Web 2.0 Radar…
There’s a storm brewing over a Cease & Desist letter sent to IT@Cork regarding their use of the term……
[…] The cease and desist letter can be viewed here […]
[…] Damien Mulley rightly points out the reason why Irish bloggers have gotten so upset over the fact that it@Cork received a cease and desist letter over the use of the phrase ‘Web 2.0′ in the title of an upcoming conference is due to the fact , “Irish bloggers couldn’t give a toss about web 2.0 but they would give a toss if one of us was sued for some stupid reason.” Annette Clancy adds in the comments section of my post about the subject, “What else would bloggers do apart from talk/write about stuff?“ […]
Web >2.0 Conference, London, UK…
This is an early notice that later this Summer I will be organising a Web >2.0 Conference in London, UK (exact location TBA). The attendance fee will be $2.795 ($2 and 795 cents) and all proceedings will be donated to……
[…] One. […]
[…] Die Rechtsabteilung von CMP sah das anders und schickte gleich mal ein anwaltliches Schreiben (mehr dazu in diesem Posting) an it@cork, in dem man die Markenrechte für den Begriff “Web 2.0″ in Zusammenhang mit Konferenzen für sich beansprucht. […]
[…] Zainteresowanych zapraszam do przeÅ›ledzenia dyskusji tutaj oraz przeÅ›ledzenia odpowiedzi i reakcji na niÄ…Â tutaj […]
[…] De agora em diante, como marca registrada, para usa-la publicamente, seja em palestras, seminários e outras coisas do tipo, só será permitido se você pedir autorização para utilizar o nome da marca, pode uma coisa dessas? Inclusive, uma ONG já não pôde usar o termo em um de seus eventos. […]
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! » at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views […]
[…] El problema: O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork!, una conferencia en Cork con el nombre “Web 2.0″ recibe una carta de O’Reilly pidiendo que retire el nombre o que pague. […]
Tim Raftery, this link’s for you.
I have lost all respect for O’Reilly
[…] El grupo de Tim O’reilly ha señalado que el nombre de Web 2.0 no podrá ser utilizado por otros como parte del tÃtulo de un evento, conferencia o congreso ya que web 2.0 es su “service mark”. Para comenzar su dominio del término le han enviado una carta de “cease and desist” a IT@Corka que tenÃa organizada una conferencia que contenÃa el término Web 2.0 en su tÃtulo. […]
How about calling it Web-II-Shifted.
[…] The last controversy about the web 2.0 conference trademark brought up some indirect topics of interest. I found the Sphareit service of Sphare really useful in discovery of related posts on issues that interest me. Running the little JavaScript on post bring results of similar posts and help to see many views, check facts and such on topics of interest. Unlike services that identify the most popular topics, mostly based on links, this service identify relations base on key words. This is much more interesting development and it can develop into content discovery based on personal interest and not necessarily based on rating. The second issue raised by Nick Carr. For long time he represent somewhat elitist approach that is concerned with the effects of the crowds, or as he once called it : “the cult of the amateur”. In one of his responses to the web 2.0 conference trademark, Nick Carr wrote about the blogosphere reaction: “Even if you believe that O’Reilly made a mistake in trying to trademark "Web 2.0," or that he made a mistake in trying to enforce that copyright – and reasonable people can certainly come to either or both of those conclusions – the gang mentality that’s playing out right now has to turn your stomach. What we’re seeing is a mob using reputational blackmail to impose its will on somebody else. Everyone seems to feel a need to put his or her boot in, often yelling out personal insults in the process. Is this the future?” This is a very interesting point. Is a public reaction that isn’t led by old media, professional politician or union leader is “Mob reaction”? I don’t think so. What I observed was amazingly fast reaction of the public to event. I was able to get fair coverage of all available opinions without deep research, which wouldn’t be the case with old media and the coverage was for sure fair. What in fact we could have seen how the blogosphere had the ability to effect the event by expressing displeasure. For long time I argue that the market can regulate itself and government involvement is not only nonessential but actually harmful. The web 2.0 trademark case demonstrate the better option. One might argue that I’m ignoring the mob blackmail but I don’t. I don’t think that CMP would change its decision so fast if they did not realize how bad was the mistake they made. […]
OH REILLY?
[…] Not too long after the birth of Enrique Raftery Carnicero, Tom Raftery (and the rest of his fellow IT@Cork committee members) received a cease and desist order from CMP Media LLC suggesting that the title of the upcoming IT@Cork Conference, the Web 2.0 Half-Day Conference, was in “flagrant violation” of their “Web 2.0″ trademark. The following is an excerpt from an article that I published on MacMerc.com earlier today: IT@Cork, a non-profit organization based in Cork, Ireland, will be presenting a Web 2.0 Half Day Conference on June 8th, 2006. According to CMP, IT@Cork’s usage of “Web 2.0″ in their conference’s title “directly violates [CMP’s] exclusive rights” and “can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to trade off the good will of CMP and cause confusion in the market.” […]
[…] Now get this: O’Reilly trademarks the term “Web 2.0!” […]
I think you should raise a statue out of this and rename the whole thing. Of course a less long and humoristic one than “Despite the money-grabbing lawyersâ€? conference (I like it a lot, though). Rather something like an abbreviation for “user experience” or so.
People will maybe pick up on it and others will get used to it. It will maybe even supersede Web2.0 someday and remind people what Web2.0, UserX, whatever is originally all about.
[…] But (c) is the most interesting: fuck “Web 2.0″ and go with something else (I did love the suggestion by Salim Ismail on http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web-20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/ about using Monty Python-esque “that-phase-of-the-web-that-shall-happen-before-web-3.0 (no more, no less etc etc)”. […]
What the F**ck ?
You got to get Tim O’Reilly response.
I don’t think he is such an idiot, it probably something his lawyers did in his behalf. This is completely contradicts his point of views on technology.
"Web ***", une marque ?…
Jusqu’à présent je n’accrochais pas trop à ce terme sans trop savoir pourquoi, sans pour autant qu’il……
We have the power to fight it ! START USE THE WORD WEB 2.0 EVERYWHERE!!! buy domains with web 2.0 ! we are stronger then the organizations , isn’t it the description for WEB 2.0 ??? DEAR TIM , THE WORD “RADAR” , BELONGS TO MY GRANDFATHER !!! STOP USING IT !!! every person is the biggest enemy of himself , here’s the proof…
Does Web 2.0 Need a New Term?…
The term “Web 2.0” is the marketing brainchild of O’Reilly Media. Yet, it has come to be associated with so many different facets of this “new” culture of the Internet we see emerging. I, like Ivo Jansch, believe that Web…
The “Web 2.0” Service Mark Debacle…
“Do as I say not as I do!”
The Web 2.0 is supposed to be about the open, collective, community-based use and evolution of the Web, so what happened here when O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0” and sets lawyers on IT@Cork?
This recent tradem…
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! » at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views […]
[…] Sinceramente, la lettera di diffida all’uso del termine Web 2.0 inviata a questi signori irlandesi dalla O’Reilly ricorda molto la celebre gag di Totò mentre tentava di vendere la fontana di Trevi ad uno sprovveduto turista!! […]
Yeah as I said it is an own goal as far as I’m concerned. But before we go all “jerry springer” on this lets wait for Tims responce. Even if he is wrong on this I have alot of respect for him. He is on holiday, so lets wait and see what he says first.
[…] Microsoft Ireland are the main sponsors of the upcoming IT@Cork Web 2.0 half day conference. When the whole controversy broke about O’Reilly’s issuing a Cease and Desist letter to IT@Cork for using the term Web 2.0 in the conference title I knew I would have to alert Microsoft. […]
[…] Further to it@Cork’s problems, related here and here, I was mulling over what I might suggest if I had somebody come to me in their situation. […]
[…] http://blog.naver.com/kielhong/60024776795 http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web-20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/ http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/05/26/oreilly-cork-it-up/ • • • […]
[…] La nota O’Reilly ha inviato una lettera di "cease and desist" (in pratica una diffida) agli organizzatori della "Web 2.0 half-day conference" per aver utilizzato il termine "Web 2.0" nel titolo della loro conferenza; questo perchè secondo O’Reilly tale "nome" sarebbe stato da loro registrato come "marchio di servizio". […]
[…] Puede que hayan sido sus abogados, y que él no sepa nada, pero el caso es que O’Reilly, que tiene registrada la marca “Web 2.0″, ha enviado una carta amenazadora a IT@Cork (una organización sin ánimo de lucro) por el uso de tal expresión. […]
[…] Vaya, vaya, no deja de ser irónico. Pero a fin de cuentas cae dentro de la lógica. Han vendido la ‘web 2.0’ como la nueva Internet, colaborativa, participativa, echa por los ciudadanos… y resulta que el nombre de esa presunta nueva web 2.0 no puede ser usado libremente porque tiene dueños. Eso es, la gente de la editorial O’Reilly, los inventores de la marca ‘web 2.0’, han registrado esta palabra y han comenzado a amenazar con llevarlos a los tribunales a aquellos sitios que la usen. Una vergüenza. […]
I agree with Don Don Crowley.
We got to get a response from Tim O’Reiily itself.
But getting “jerry springer” about it has it’s own value:
It shoes his lawyers and business managers (who don’t give a damn about the community) what people think on their point of view.
You mentioned that IT@Cork doesn’t have the resources to fight this. I suspect that IT@Cork’s bank balance is quite small. Even if O’Reilly’s claims were valid the worst that could possibly happen is that IT@Cork would go broke and may have to start over. That would actually be better than given in to these guys.
Keep going.The letter is ridiculous. How can they claim that Web 2.0 popularity is the result of CPM investment!
You will have support from all of us (execept greedy lawyers!
[…] Here comes the fact that Tim O´Reilly (yeah, we have all read any of his books when in college) has sent a “cease and desist” letter to those who have used the very words of this post title (an Irish non-profit organization, btw). Wow!! […]
[…] Controversy about our “Web 2.0″ service mark¡Ê2006ǯ5·î25ÆüÉÕ¡Ë http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/controversy_about_our_web_20_s.html More on our “Web 2.0″ service mark¡Ê2006ǯ5·î26ÆüÉÕ¡Ë http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! ¡ÊCMP͸ÂÀÕǤ²ñ¼Ò¤¬IT@Cork¤ËÁ÷ÉÕ¤·¤¿·Ù¹ðʸ¤¬·ÇºÜ¤µ¤ì¤Æ¤¤¤Þ¤¹¡Ë http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web-20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/ […]
O’Reilly and the “Web 2.0” Trademark…
By Eric Goldman O’Reilly Media is a publisher of technical books. They also operate some technical conferences, including the “O’Reilly……
[…] I heard from gavin that the o reilly affair has been slashdotted. […]
[…] Según el mismo Tom Raftery, lo desagradable de todo esto es que en Febrero le habÃa hecho una invitación a esta conferencia al mismÃsimo O’Reilly al cual este contestó amablemente a fines de Febrero, que no podrÃa asistir por tener su horario demasiado ocupado como para realizar otro viaje internacional. El punto es que la notificación legal llega solo dos semanas antes de incio de la conferencia, esto es el 8 de Junio. […]
Le web 2.0 devient une marque, le web 3.0 n’est pas qu’un poisson d’avril…
Initiateur du “web 2.0”, Tim O’Reilly semble avoir décidé de tirer un maximum de valeur de ce concept en déposant la marque “web 2.0 *event*” (event = conference, séminaire, …). Un maximum de valeur quitte à déclencher l’ire de ses plus…..
[…] In conclusion, I can see two things coming out of this. 1) An new, incredibly successful model of fighting spam 2) A spam war that will never end and do nothing but consume monumental amounts of bandwidth, which will end up affecting the end-user. I will try to keep this post updated as the Okopipi project gets closer to completion and they start WWWWI (world wide web war 1) Oh, and O’Reilly, I am going trademark that term so don’t even think about it! […]
[…] I rant a bit about Apple’s loss in the Appeals Court and OReilly’s Cease And Desist letter against IT@Cork. […]
[…] don’t ever make a course, conference or public talk called something with web2.0 […]
Death 2.0…
…
I tire of big businesses bullying the little man, time to strike back and hit them were it hurts most, the wallet.
Thats the last O’Reilly book or service I buy. If a large enough group of people do the same, they may be forced to sit up and take notice.
Sorry O’Reilly, you’ve lost at least one customer over this, I didn’t realise that you shared the same bed as microsoft.
I don’t think it is a good idea to forbid people from using the term “Web 2.0″. Language must be free as well.
…
I can’t help thinking that O’Reilly are victims of their own success here. Like it or not, “Web 2.0” has stuck pretty well as a term. Protecting their Web 2.0 conference while still hoping to keep it in popular use is going to be a difficult line to walk.
It seems Tim O’Reilly himself is on holiday. I wonder whether things will change when he returns.
…
[more]
Nooked at World Famous web2.0 event in Cork…
Our CEO is speaking at what is now the most blogged about web2.0 conference around – it certainly ruffled a few feathers. Should be fun – make sure you drop by and say hi Tags: web2.0, itcork……
[…] Il appert que l’expression « Web 2.0 » serait une marque de commerce en voit d’être officialisé et appartenant au célèbre Tim O’Reilley. Cette information issue du blogue Siliconvalley.com, laisse certainement perplexe. Il est vrai que O’Reilley fut l’un des promoteurs du concept Web 2.0, les plus fervents. Cependant, que sa firme O’Reilley Media en conjonction avec l’organisateur de son congrès annuel CMP envoient une mise en demeure à une organisation sans but lucratif qui veut faire une demi-journée de conférence sur le sujet, est un tant soit peu exagéré. Surtout, qu’il appert, selon un collaborateur (Ewan) de Loïc Lemeur, que le concept « Web 2.0 » a déjà été écrit dans un article datant de 1999. L’auteur de cet article réclamera-t-il ses droits d’auteurs sur l’utilisation de l’expression qu’il a créée? Serais-je poursuivi pour abus d’utilisation du terme Web 2.0 ? Comme le dit si bien Siliconvalley.com citant O’Reiley lui-même : […]
[…] Intellectual property protections at one time served to protect the consumer, the little guy, the entrepreneur. That was back when the feedback loop that corrected fraudulent activities was slow, tedious and often ended with a dual in the middle of main street. With patents being filed en masse by folks like Texas Instruments (who will likely never use or enforce the majority of their portfolio), with copyright being used to stifle creativity and expression and trademarks being applied to community-protected language and ideas, it’s clear that the original uses and purposes of these legal concepts are not only under scrutiny, but may have finally become the last ditch effort large power-mongering corporations with major budgets to go after the smaller, more nimble independents that they were designed to protect. […]
How Tom Raftery Rallied the Trolls and Escaped Culpability…
The latest in the dust-up between Tom Raftery and O’Reilly is a group of trolls telling Marc Hedlund to can the puff pieces until Tim O’Reilly can return. Apparently O’Reilly needs to shut down it’s publishing program until Tim can……
OReilly seems to have reached an agreement. So this problem has gone away. But OReilly is not promising it won’t flex it’s muscles another time. So the basic problem has not gone away. OReilly is not off the hook yet as far as I’m concerned.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html
[…] Maybe… The whole blogosphere is focussed on our friends at ITCork down in the Republic of Cork, who have caused a bit of stir in the online world. […]
Like few others, also I think that not buying books from O’Reilly, as well as other services from them, is the right direction. O’Reilly owes must (if not all) of it’s success to the community and open source community, and therefore they should pay a price when they are turning against it’s customers.
O’Reilly publishes fine books, but for most of them there is a good alternative from other publishers. Just look harder before buying, and you will probably find them.
[…] don’t ever make a course, conference or public talk called something with web2.0 […]
Web2.0 is a verb. Give it a rest.
What do you do when Web3.0 becomes the new expression? The argument is dead and O’Rielly will still look like a schmuck!
[…] apropos “Web 2.0″ … darf ich den Begriff hier überhaupt benutzen ?? […]
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! […]
[…] You can guess what happened next? IT@Cork gets a legal letter (despite having invited Tim to the event and receiving a polite ‘I can’t make it’). Tom Rafterty posts it. The ‘blogosphere’ goes crazy. (A little too crazy for my liking – there are reasonably complex legal issues here, but such is the way of the world). It gets /.ed. To me, the most constructive thing to do is to object to the registration, or alternatively to avoid the use of the term (i.e. deny it oxygen). I think that the registrants were right to protect the mark, but wrong to register it in the first place. Dead wrong. You can’t try and popularise an idea while making it difficult to even discuss it. […]
[…] You can guess what happened next? IT@Cork gets a legal letter (despite having invited Tim to the event and receiving a polite ‘I can’t make it’). Tom Rafterty posts it. The ‘blogosphere’ goes crazy. (A little too crazy for my liking – there are reasonably complex legal issues here, but such is the way of the world). It gets /.ed. To me, the most constructive thing to do is to object to the registration, or alternatively to avoid the use of the term (i.e. deny it oxygen). I think that the registrants were right to protect the mark, but wrong to register it in the first place. Dead wrong. You can’t try and popularise an idea while making it difficult to even discuss it. […]
Web 2.0 opatentowany?!…
Nawet jesli Web 2.0 to tylko haselko marketingowe, to jednak O’Reilly zachowal sie bardzo brzydko . Jestesmy……
[…] Doch es kam, wie es kommen mußte: Die erste Abmahnung wegen Verletzung von Urheberrechten folgte unverzüglich. Ausgerechnet eine Non-Profit-Organisation bekam den ersten Abmahnbrief, weil sie mit dem Begriff Web 2.0 für eine Konferenz geworben hatte. Ironischerweise hat die Organisation namens “IT@cork” Ihren Sitz ausgerechnet in Tim O’Reillys irischem Geburtsort Cork. Der Organisator veröffentlichte den Abmahnbrief von CMP in seinem Blog – was eine Protestwelle der Szene hervorrief. […]
[…] InformacjÄ™ o niepokojÄ…cym wpisie na irlandzkim blogu Toma Raftery dostaÅ‚em od Riddle’a już w piÄ…tek (dziÄ™ki!), postanowiÅ‚em jednak wstrzymać siÄ™ z reakcjÄ… do dzisiaj – czekajÄ…c na powrót samego Tima O’Reilly – jak widać w wielu postach na blogu radar.oreilly.com – wszyscy czekali na jego reakcjÄ™ na zaistniaÅ‚Ä… sytuacjÄ™. […]
kinen papiko
My Suggestion
Make it a 2 day conference. Ireland is beautiful in the summer and I believe Cork is a nice city.
There is certainly enough to talk about and I’m sure you could get a significant group of speakers.
Your local tourist board might be able to assist and probarly O’Reilly.
[…] I’ve been staying out of the dustup over O’Reilly’s trademarking of the term ‘Web 2.0′, but the latest post from Tim O’Reilly rather pissed me off. In particular, this bit: O’Reilly also values its trademarks — as do other companies and individuals aligned with the values of openness and sharing. (I’ll note that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, that Apache is a trademark of the Apache Software Foundation, Mozilla and Firefox are trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation, Wikipedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, and so on.) […]
Beware the PR moniker……
News that a conference organizer in Ireland was hit with a ‘cease and desist’ by CMP Media over the usage of the term Web 2.0 in the title of an event they are running in Cork [Disclaimer: Microsoft are the……
Call it a ‘Web 1.0 conference’. Today the web is, by far, at its version 0,412 BETA.
Web 1.0 should be with no errors and standards followed.
Tom
I’ve just read Tim’s response and must admit I feel some sympathy for him. A couple of points:
* You seem to have had a very good relationship with Tim beforehand and I think that it would be a waste if this was to sour over a badly handled incident. Tim does seem upset with you and it would be in your (and IT@Corks) interest not to leave it like that.
* The problems stemmed from the fact that the Web2.0 conference spawned a generic term Web2.0. This led to a difficult situation for CMP as they need to protect their brands but in this case their brand has been adopted overly widely. Its a tricky balancing act and not too surprising they fallen at the first fence (I far as I can remember this is the first time a conference has spawned a term like this). You were quite right to push back but maybe you should have gone to Tim before blogging about it.
* I think CMP/Tim have learnt a lesson about allowing confusion between a conference and a term and hopefully they’ll be more careful. For now I think they’ve lost Web2.0 and will have to come up with some Web2.0World type brand for their conference.
* I’ve read all your posts and while I think it may have been better to talk direct to Tim (I know he was out but there was no real urgency) I don’t think you stirred the fire overly. Pile-ons are the default behaviour on the web and you can’t be blamed for that or for other peoples stupid comments/posts.
To sum up I think you too should just kiss and make up and do it publicly. Lessons learnt on both sides, Tim seems reasonable and I know you are.
Best of luck
Des
[…] Hurray, Tim O’Reilly is back from his vacation, and here’s his point ot the Who owns the term “Web2.0″ discussion. It’s quite worth reading, and as always he has a handful of good points there. Tom Raftery of IT@Cork must have noted the discrepancy between the friendly email from me that he quoted from and CMP’s letter. In fact, the next line of my email, which Tom neglected to quote, was “Best of luck with your event.” A number of people in the comment thread drew parallels to my Amazon 1-click patent protest, but they left out one important point: I wrote to Jeff Bezos privately first, and went public with my complaint only after he’d given me the brush off. Given that Tom and I had previously had a conversation where I wished him the best of luck with his conference, while the lawyer’s letter came from CMP, I would have thought that he would have wondered whether the right hand knew what the left hand was doing before launching and then encouraging the torrent of net vitriol that’s come our way. He did call CMP to talk to the lawyer who wrote the letter, but he never tried to contact me. While he acknowledges that the letter was from CMP, he used O’Reilly’s name in the headline and repeatedly throughout the piece for maximum net impact. So while we owe Tom an apology for heavy-handed tactics, I think Tom owes us an apology for the way he responded. […]
Trivia
Speaking of coining a phrase. Did you know that the term “boycott” itself was coined in Ireland in 1880. Athough not in the same town as this conference.
[…] The site is barebones which is probably good for overall usage and bandwidth. It’s more a photo site for the mashup crowd. Very Web 2.0 Conference like. Oppps…can’t say that anymore. […]
L’Affaire O’Reilly…
The affair to which I refer is the fuss about Web 2.0 as a service mark. This seems like a good time to post about it, since: the facts now seem clear; Tim O’Reilly has returned from vacation and given his side of the story; and I have something to sa…
[…] Scene 2: Tim outs that on the web leading to what is known as the First War of the Bloggers (circa 2006), leading to the rise of the blog-mob a.k.a the BLOB. […]
hey tom, how are you?
Not Every Blogger is Credible…
Sometimes I blog about blogging and it’s not just because I like to hear myself think (though it is nice to be reminded my brain still works enough to write coherent sentences). Developers of social software can learn a lot……
[…] O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! […]
I hope that their wifes are trademarked as 1.0
The Web 2.0 Trademark Controversy: Take Note and Take Care…
Over the last several days, I have been reading the “discussion” of trademark law that has been taking place in a blog neighborhood near you. As some of you may know, in a past life I was an Intellectual Property……
Web 2.0 — who owns it?…
Marty Schwimmer has an edifying post about the flap over who owns the name “Web 2.0”. Check it out. See the background on Slashdot; the cease and desist letter from Tim O’Reilly’s CMP Media is here. The dispute is over……
[…] Ulkomailla nettiyleisön vihan kohteeksi joutui viimeksi Web 2.0 -nimikkeen vanhempi Tim O’Reilly (ja hänen O’Reilly kustantamonsa). Tästä se lähti, tässä rauhotteluyritys lisäsi bensaa ja tässä onnistuttiin hitusen paremmin (vaan ei täydellisesti). O’Reillyn julkisuuskuva sai aikamoista osumaa, kuinka pysyvää, se jää nähtäväksi. […]
[…] æ¤äº‹ä»¶ç»§ç»å…³æ³¨ä¸ï¼š O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork! Web 2.0 Service Mark Controversy (Tim responding this time) Mob Mentality and Web 2.0 @digg […]
Oh my godness.
In my understanding the term “Web 2.0” was just a misinterpretation of the idea, that we start to live and work with a next generation web, so we could say web 2. For those who try to make profit with the idea of a symmantic web which should be part of “Web 2.0” is one of those rediculous things we europeans still hope to protect ourselves again the possibilities to get trademarks something similar like the possibility to get a patent on an idea.
In anyway, we all should start working against those trademark and patentsharks as we will not be able to realize groundbreaking projekts and ideas in the neareast future.
Just my 0,02 EUR. 😉
[…] O’Reilly, famous for its books (and now its lawyers) has sent a cease and desist order on the upcoming IT@Cork conference, as they have trademarked the term Web 2.0. “O’Reilly and CMP co-produce the Web 2.0 conference. “Web 2.0″ was coined when we were brainstorming the concept for the first conference in 2003 …To protect the brand we’ve established with our two Web 2.0 Conferences, we’re taking steps to register “Web 2.0″ as our service mark, for conferences. It’s a pretty standard business practice.” […]
[…] This is an article which was run in yesterday’s Irish Examiner (Friday June 2nd 2006) in the wake of the controversy surrounding CMP/O’Reilly’s trade marking of the term Web 2.0. […]
[…] I think about safety and it is something that is starting to concern me even more now. With the Web 2.0 movement ( oh gosh, does this mean I owe O’Reilly money now?) How easy is it for you to be found and located and stalked? What are the kids that are posting myspace, flickr, and etc.. going to do when they apply for jobs later on? What rights do people have for their data not to be shared? A few of us have had discussions about identity theft and i think this article, Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy. makes you think a little about what the companies (that many of us work for) are doing. Just remember nothing is for free. […]
We can be grateful that Tim Berniers Lee
did not copyright “World Wide Web”, “WWW”,
or “The Web”…else there would never have
been web conferences.
[…] O el tÃo Tim podrá demandarte por usar su termino registrado (en espera de resolución). Bien podrÃa registrar también el termino imbécil porque es lo que todo el mundo esta pensando de él. […]
Just Say No to 2.0…
Just Say No to 2.0…
[…] Today web2.0 tomorrow Microformats!? I wonder if Mr. Oreilly has a trademark on this one? […]
[…] trademarks “Web 2.0″ O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers onIT@Cork! […]
[…] Unfortunately I tuned into this podcast a couple of weeks after the fact, but even so, I’d like to share an interesting perspective. It was one of many discussions that flared up around this blog post by Tom Raftery from IT@CORK (in Ireland) who received a cease and desist letter from the legal team of O’Reilly publishers. Apparently O’Reilly Trademarked the term “Web 2.0 Conference” and after many oppotunitites, took this opportunity to start enforcing it on a small 1/2 day conference on the other side of the world. Follow either of the above links for more info. […]
I realise its a bit late, but I have just posted a possible solution on my MindSpace Art Blog/Podcst
[…] On the MindSpace Art Blog/Podcast I recently posted my perspectives on the O’Reily ‘Web 2.0 Conference’ StyleMark protection issue. In addition to sharing my two cents worth, I mention how it is actually quite damaging for this issue to remain largely unresolved (even though O’Reilly has backed down) and I propose an interesting solution. I have cited this below: Unfortunately I tuned into this podcast a couple of weeks after the fact, but even so, I’d like to share an interesting perspective. It was one of many discussions that flared up around this blog post by Tom Raftery from IT@CORK (in Ireland) who received a cease and desist letter from the legal team of O’Reilly publishers. Apparently O’Reilly StyleMarked (similar to TradeMarked) the term “Web 2.0 Conferenceâ€? and after many oppotunitites, took this opportunity to start enforcing it on a small 1/2 day conference on the other side of the world. Follow either of the above links for more info. […]
[…] I have been an avid reader of a number of blogs for the last couple of years, Tom Raftery, Robert Scoble, Damien Mulley, Shel Israel and many more. Through Donagh Kiernan I was invited to join IT Cork I attended my first meeting and the speaker was Cian Kinsella and I have to say his speech went completely over my head, I didn’t understand a word he said. I left vowing never to return. A few months later I noticed that Scoble was guest speaker and all of a sudden I became very interested in IT Cork again. Unfortunately I was working in Warsaw at the time and missed the event. When all the web 2.0 bruhaha started I decided that this would be an event not to be missed. I attended the dinner at Probys the night before sitting next to Robert Burke of Microsoft and Britt Blaser and I have to say it completely opened my eyes to the power of blogging. In a previous incarnation I was the founder of the Cork breakers club a local CB radio group and I have to say the spirit in the restaurant that night reminded me of those heady days when we were trying to get CB AM radio legalised. I met Shel at the dinner and we had a quick chat about an idea I had to launch a new product through blog marketing and quickly ran through with him. The conference next day was fantastic and I had lunch beforehand with Britt Blaser and his lovely wife Tamara which was incredibly interesting. Shel returned to the USA and we exchanged emails back and forth. He then agreed to come onboard in a consultancy position in tandem with the brilliant Tom Raftery. The roam4free blog was born. Technorati Tags: blogs, Britt Blaser, Damien Mulley, Donagh Kiernan, Irishblogs, IT Cork, Robert Burke, Robert Scoble, Shel Israel, web 2.0Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
[…] In June, I was in Ireland for a week and stayed a couple of nights with Tom Raftery (that’s raf-ter-y, not raff-erty). The official reason for the trip was that I was speaking at the now-legendary IT@Cork event along with Shel Israel, Fergus Burns, Rob Burke and Walter Higgins. That’ll be my next post – this one is for more important matters. […]
[…] Here’s a link with more details: http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web-20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/ […]
[…] I posted about this yesterday after I was sent a link to the post on Tom Raftery’s blog about O’Reilly sending lawyers after an Irish Conference. I was firstly shocked and secondly annoyed about it so I decided I’d keep an eye on it and see how this all evolved. Before this I never quite realised the power of blogging … it has really opened my eyes and the blog sphere is positively buzzing about this little doozey and O’Reilly are feeling the heat! From my spin through the blogsphere the first thing I note is a unanimous agreement that O’Reilly made a HUGE booboo by sending the lawyers in on this one as a first resort and so close to the date of the conference. This has achieved only two things, it has made O’Reilly look so bad that techies all over the web are vowing to take their book business elsewhere and given so much free press to IT@Cork that their conference is sure to sell out! The second thing that even the few O’Reilly apologists I came across seem to agree on is that “Web2.0″ isn’t really even a trademarkable term! […]
[…] The RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) has to date, sued over 18,000 people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works, and have settled approximately 2,500 of the cases. Sue first and ask questions later seems to be their motto. As I have witnessed first-hand, bringing out the lawyers is never a good PR move. […]
O’Reilly is an idiot
[…] Layla Pavone, Presidente di IAB Italia, segnala sul suo blog una controversia legale risalente a qualche mese fa, che ha dato vita ad un precedente in tema di diritti d’autore riguardo al Web 2.0. Seguendo un paio dilinks , possiamo ricostruire infatti la disputa avvenuta tra It@Cork, un’organizzazion non profit per professionisti dell’Information Technology, e Mr. Tim O’Reilly, l’editore americano che ha organizzato la prima ed originale Web 2.0 Conference, dove in effetti è stato coniato nel 2003 il termine identificativo di questo nuovo modo di intendere il WWW. Il problema è che O’Reilly sostiene di aver tutti i diritti di copyright su questa sigla, in quanto sarebbe in itinere il procedimento per la registrazione di Web 2.0 come servicemark, denominazione che identifica un marchio registrato nel caso esso sia un servizio. Attenzione, dunque, ad usare questo termine con tanta noncuranza: potrebbe arrivarvi inaspettatamente a casa una lettera come quella nella foto! E sarebbero dolori… Potete approfondire guardando il video-documentario What is Web 2.0?, con molte interviste ai big del settore e chiarimenti sui modelli di business ed il ruolo degli editori in un contesto di user generated content (English only). […]
So it looks like you went on with the ‘Web 2.0″ conference. Good for you!
[…] By the way, the peak in May/June has to do with the Web 2.0 controversy! Technorati Tags: awstats, blogging, blog metrics, Business blogging, hosting company, log files, statistics, stats, stats programs, webalizer, Web Analytics, web metrics, web statsBookmark at these sites:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
C’mon, the Irish are infamous rebels. I’d tell them to go f*** themselves. In America, people can sue, in Ireland I would never even have known where to find a lawyer. We used to settle disputes with pints or fists. What are they going to do? Sega tried to do the same thing with 3D (ie. they own the term and technology), if you can believe that. Screw them. I love the workaround idea someone had of using Web 2.1 – it’s exactly how the band Thin Lizzy got around copyright infringement (ie. the cartoon Tin Lizzy – people in Dublin would pronounce “Thin” as “Tin” anyway – brilliant idea!). I’d rename it the “Ballbag O’Reilly Web 2.0 Memorial Conference”. In fact, hand out Web 2.0 stickers and t shirts to show how unfazed you are.
But in all seriousness, not only is it an incredibly small thing to do, attempting to sabotage your conference, especially when it is an honourable cause, but the way they did it is just mindless. It’s petty and you should counter sue as many people have already bought air fares and hotels etc. Can you say, “Class Action”?
[…] As ferramentas "revolucionárias" que temos a nossa disposição na internet são fruto de árduo trabalho e idéias geniais de pessoas e empresas, que não apenas estavam completamente desconectadas a qualquer intento marqueteiro da O’Reilly Media; muitas não tinham fins comerciais em absoluto. Embalar idéias alheias amplamente conhecidas e colocar em uma prateleira como uma novidade, utilizando slogans apelativos e descabidos, impropérios como "revolução democrática" e "liberdade digital", é falta de ética. As empresas que aproveitam a onda, sejam periódicos, consultorias ou editoras, só atestam seu oportunismo. O castigo, contudo, não tarda: Tim O’Reilly proibiu a utilização do termo , transformando imediatamente seus aliados oportunistas em inimigos indignados. […]
kind of sad when you realise that tim o’reilly is from cork city.
[…] I would call it FooBar Camp, but I don’t want TO coming after me for trademark infringement. […]
[…] The ongoing blogosphere brouhaha over FOO Camp is kind of, well, irrelavent to most of us people not in the Sillicon Valley / Tim O’Reilly Co-Prosperity Sphere. It’s not that we aren’t interested in a good learn-in, mind you — it’s that the whole idea of trademarking the future of the Web seems somewhat opposite to the very nature of what “open” means. And a non-joiner’s Wiki, while perhaps entertaining from a very Inside Baseball point of view, isn’t necessarily a constructive critique of that particular trend. […]
O’Reilly is an idiot, this is stupid.
Continue use Web 2.0
[…] Basically O â??Reilly are claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term â??Web 2.0â?³ and therefore IT@Cork canâ??t use the term for its conference. Apparantly use of the term â??Web 2.0â?³ is a â??flagrant violationâ?? of their trademark rights!read more | digg story […]
You might consider contacting O’Reilly. Do note that this is signed by CMP Media, O’Reilly’s partners at the conference, not O’Reilly themselves. Also, CMP Media looks to be the holder of the trademark application, not O’Reilly.
[…] I love what Jason Calacanis has to say on this topic (fight Apple all the way and make them look bad in the process). Apple better be careful or they will “O’Reilly” themselves in this process whether they are right or wrong. This has the makings of being a very bad PR move for Apple. No one likes to see big companies like Apple go after “the little guy”. Ask Nissan and McDonalds. […]
Until the a standard for the http 2.0 protocol is ratified by the IEFT, web 2.0 simply does not exist.
[…] Die Rechtsabteilung von CMP sah das anders und schickte gleich mal ein anwaltliches Schreiben (mehr dazu in diesem Posting) an it@cork, in dem man die Markenrechte für den Begriff Web 2.0 in Zusammenhang mit Konferenzen für sich beansprucht. […]
Sorry for the tardy post, but I just read about this.
I remember a few years back when some knuckleheads decided to trademark the term “Year 2000,” slap it on some t-shirts and coffee mugs, and then tried to sue anyone that dared utter it.
I have an idea: Why not use the term “Web 2.0 Beta?” After all, that’s really what it is. Web 2.1 suggests that 2.0 has been implemented and updated, but really, it hasn’t.
Or, you could release a product simply called “Web,” and then uodated it to version 2.
Such silly attempts at cash grabbing rarely work out, and ultimately the greedy bastards will spend more money attempting to defend their claim then they will ever make trying to sell it.
Just like the fools with the 93,459 “Year 2000” t-shirts in their garage.
Just a quick note that we are indeed moving forward with Web 2point2 here in San Francisco – only 1% of the cost of that other web versioned conference at $32.95 – gets you 2 lunches, a t-shirt and access to the Web 2.2 Release Party – if you are around SF, please join us.
[…] A little behind the times as always, but I learned yesterday that CMP and O’Reilly have registered Web 2.0 as a ’service mark’, effectively attempting to prevent anyone from organising any kind of live event which uses the term ‘Web 2.0′ in the title without their express permission. They chose to assert their ownership of it by launching a ‘cease and desist’ demand at an Irish Web 2.0 Half Day Conference, the organiser of which had received a ‘good luck with your conference’ message three months earlier from, er… Tim O’Reilly. […]
It is amazing how any issue involving patents or trademarks brings out so many ignorant and indignant rants from people who have no understanding of the law. In this case, there have been so many that very vew are likely to see my comments, but I was so annoyed I had to post them anyway.
1. IT@Cork had to know that there was an existing Web 2.0 conference. Naming theirs the same thing was certainly ill-advised.
2. If you don’t defend your trademarks, they are no longer valid. In this case, anyone would be able to start up “Web 2.0” named conferences and there would be confusion in the market. So, you have to defend them, even when it is a “poor little non-profit” that is infringing.
3. Patents and trademarks abused quite a bit these days, but most of the people posting here seem to think that their very existence is evil. They obviously aren’t trying to run a business, or they would be more sensitve to this. If you launched a product (like a conference) with a given name, and someone else starts using the same name for a similar product, you would probably be rushing straight of to a solicitor and doing the same thing CMP has done here.
4. As has been pointed out here a few times, a trademark exists from when it is first used. A registration in a given jurisdiction is necessary for certain administrative purposes, but doesn’t affect the legal standing either way.
Hoopla makes some very valid points – especially with regard to the fact that we are talking about a confernce – yet misses the larger one.
Yes, patents and trademarks are valuable and necessary for commerce. Their existence is far from evil, and is in fact a very good thing.
However, the flip side of it is a tendency to try and own everything. When Paris Hilton tries to trademark the phrase “That’s hot!,” a line has clearly been crossed.
Likewise, when fifteen companies scramble to trademark the term “shock and awe,” the spirit of patents and trademarks is being abused.
Admittedly, the “Web 2.0” issue isn’t the same thing as the former examples, but the debate has become a gray area. O’Reilly coined the term Web 2.0, but as a meme, it took on a life of its own. It’s akin to Robert Cailliau’s coinage of the term “World Wide Web,” which also began life as the name of a conference, interestingly enough. It’s simply too big of an idea for one entity to claim ownership.
To his credit, Tim O’Reilly acknowledges that the use of the term has quickly become ubiquitous, and that they may have to set it free. CMP technically owns the name, though, so we’ll just have to see what happens next.
[…] C|Net is reporting in “Up in arms over who owns ‘Web 2.0′” that O’Reilly Media has applied for a trademark on the term “Web 2.0,” which company flaks say they coined in 2003. It appears that no one noticed until the company sent a cease-and-desist letter to IT@Cork for using the term in the title of an upcoming conference, a couple of weeks after company founder Tim O’Reilly was invited to speak at said conference. […]
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a long time. With all the Web 2.0 events happening recently, including Enterprise Irelands, I wonder have any of them received these notices?
OK.
What is next then? 3.0 Technologies are not up and running are they?
I wish I could say that I just don’t believe it but then I have seen plenty of things get trademarked and patented and then squeezed on to everyone else.
[…] If we did decide to grant brand-hood to web 2.0, that makes it a bit of an anomaly, as brands go. It isn’t owned by anyone (well, maybe: see O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″… and others), it isn’t organized by one organization, its “look” is not specified by a design specification or a brief. […]
[…] Este curso empieza con renovados ánimos en LA EsKuel@ d TeleKo: a las clásicas jornadas Internet NG, que este año en su sexta edición (miércoles, 18 de octubre de 2006) tendrán un marcado carácter de actualidad al apostar por las tecnologÃas web emergentes y poner su foco sobre la Web 2.0 – esperando que O’Reilly no nos demande – hay que añadir el evento “Blogs – La Conversación” que tendrá lugar en la jornada inmediatamente posterior (jueves, 19 de octubre de 2006) en el mismo entorno, para extraer de las profundidades de la blogosfera hispana los aspectos sociales más relevantes del fenómeno que ha tenido más trascendencia dentro de la Web de Nueva Generación. VI Internet NGSesión 1:La Sociedad de la Información […]
[…] Die Rechtsabteilung von CMP sah das anders und schickte gleich mal ein anwaltliches Schreiben (mehr dazu in diesem Posting) an it@cork, in dem man die Markenrechte für den Begriff Web 2.0 in Zusammenhang mit Konferenzen für sich beansprucht. […]
[…] Most bloggers will know who Tom is but not all of our readers have blogs (yet). So for those of you who don’t know who he is, you’ll probably remember when O’Reilly publishers presented a cease and desist to a conference for using the term “Web 2.0â€?? Well, that was the IT Cork conference that Tom helps to organise, ironic because Tim O’Reily is a Cork man himself. […]
[…] a “Cease and Desist” letter on the not-for-profit organisation networking association IT@Cork Web, claiming that they were in breach of copyright. CMP Media claimed to have lodged a trademark […]
[…] CEO is speaking at what is now the most blogged about web2.0 conference around – it certainly ruffled a few […]
This is hard to believe. Web 2.0 is a term in common usage.
I will never buy another one of his books…
I think i need to file the paperwork for Web 50.0 for my retirement benefits
Time to post to this again, since there seem to be a few more postings from people, who haven’t really researched the issue (or don’t care about accuracy or trademarks).
1. Neither Tim O’Reilly nor O’Reilly Media have trademarked anything here – CMP puts on the conference, and they are the ones with the trademark.
2. Web 2.0 wasn’t in common usage before they came up with it as a name for their conference.
3. They haven’t tried to stop it being used for a great many things, but when it comes to conferences, they have to. Otherwise, they may as well just give up on holding their conferences. There would be a lot of confusion if there were 500 different “Web 2.0” conferences.
If you started a business, and someone opened up down the street with the same name, doing the same thing, you would probably not think trademark laws were such a bad thing.
In addition, if they don’t defend their trademark from little indignant punks, they lose it. And then anyone, including big companies who might be their direct competitor could use the name.
4. There is no such thing as “Web 2.0” or “Web 50.0”, it is a concept name that they came up with for what is coming NEXT.
the question was not whether O’Reilly trademarked the term, the issue was O’Reilly’s knowledge of the trademark status of Web 2.0, and that he may have acted deceptively towards the public.
Scott,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
You said:
ROFL, it has been a long time since anyone called me a little punk, never mind an indignant one!
Ah no, it is not a name they came up with. The term Web 2.0 was coined and first used online by an Italian researcher (see earlier comments for link). O’Reilly/CMP merely took his term and popularised it. If I coined a phrase and CMP/O’Reilly popularised it and then trademarked it, I’d be pissed off!
By the way, just as a matter of fact, there was no trademark granted anywhere for the term Web 2.0 in May 2006 when CMP and O’Reilly’s sent the C&D.
And finally, I still believe that CMP/O’Reilly’s would have been far better served if they had trademarked the term “Web 2.0 Conference”. No-one would have had an issue with that. The fact that they have tried to trademark “Web 2.0” has reflected extremely poorly on them. And, to be honest, it is an indefensible trademark which will fall at the first legal challenge.
not true. CMP Media has held the US trademark for ‘Web 2.0’ since 2004. The fact is that O’Reilly was well aware that Web 2.0 was a trademark, but they were trying to promote the campaign ‘virally’. Unfortunately, for O’Reilly the thing blew up in his face.
Sorry JJ – I’m afraid you are mistaken there. They applied for the trademark in 2004. The application was still pending in May 2006 when it@cork received the C&D.
from the USPTO web site:
Word Mark WEB 2.0Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005
IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Design Search Code
Serial Number 78322306
Filing Date November 3, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 13, 2005
Registration Number 3110027
Registration Date June 27, 2006
Owner (REGISTRANT) CMP MEDIA LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 600 COMMUNITY DRIVE MANHASSET NEW YORK 11030
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Susan L. Heller and Joseph Geisman
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "WEB" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
I think the confusion here is that CMP was intending to register for the trademark in the UK/Ireland (not really sure how it works over there). From my information, if someone uses a term publicly then you lose the right to trademark, and this was the issue that CMP had.
JJ,
everyone was using the term publicly.
Enterprise Ireland, an Irish Government agency, held a Web 2.0 conference in April of 2006. They received no C&D.
Hi Tom,
I am in no way defending CMP or any other party. I just want to get the story straight. CMP filed for the US trademark in 03 and its ‘first use’ was in 04. I am not a trademark expert. Basically I think what happened here was some kind of edgy marketing technique where CMP allowed Web 2.0 to grow ‘virally’ with the hopes to harvest the profits at a later date. I am sure someone somewhere used the term Web 2.0, but CMP is clearly the party who provided the stimulus for it to become as popular as it did. Clearly, they did not anticipate the negative publicity that arose from this incident.
[…] sorry asses around the airport. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I? (As it happens, the Tom Raftery, Tim O’Reilly and Web 2.0 story was around this time last year. Lesson: don’t mess with Irish […]
[…] Ireland chose to use the phrase Web 2.0 in the title of it’s conference in 2006. CMP sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that IT@Cork discontinue the use of it’s service mark. However, according to […]
[…] people track the 2.0 moniker back to Tim O’Reilly and Web 2.0. Thanks, Tim. The VAR Guy loves Web 2.0 widgets, social networks, etc. But 2.0 […]
[…] Update May 31: Yehaa, nothing like a current event to prove my point: O’Reilly sets out to trademark the term “Web 2.0″. […]
Do they have a federal trademark registration for the WEB 2.O name?
Let them have Web 2.0, you can one-up them with Web 2.01.
[…] knew about the events and what their position was. O’Reilly, anxious to avoid situation like this one, said he reached out to Baran to ask him to change the name but never heard back. Ryan Carson was […]
[…] knew about the events and what their position was. O’Reilly, anxious to avoid situation like this one, said he reached out to Baran to ask him to change the name but never heard back. Ryan Carson was […]
[…] knew about the events and what their position was. O’Reilly, anxious to avoid situation like this one, said he reached out to Baran to ask him to change the name but never heard back. Ryan Carson was […]
[…] knew about the events and what their position was. O’Reilly, anxious to avoid situation like this one, said he reached out to Baran to ask him to change the name but never heard back. Ryan Carson was […]
If I were you, I’d trademark the term “Tim” and sue the little fuqer.
[…] blog to find out how they were handling the controversy over the Web 2.0 service mark dispute with IT@Cork.The dispute seemed to be out of character for O’Reilly Media and was in danger of alienating […]
[…] the work of WebGuild that it would have happened. Keeping things under the radar and avoiding the PR flack it got the last time they tried to enforce their intellectual property rights would be in their […]
[…] web2.0 tomorrow Microformats!? I wonder if Mr. Oreilly has a trademark on this […]
[…] to withdraw support for WebGuild Conferences and Events. O’Reilly was desperate to avert a repeat of the backlash when he sued an Irish non-profit for putting on a Web 2.0 […]
[…] those that missed it, there was some fun and games yesterday as O’Reilly got their knickers in a corporate twist over the copyright of “web2.0″. Sheesh, how un-web2 can you […]
[…] 16, 20060 CommentsWhile we all debate the true definition of 2.0, its direction, value, lifespan, cease and desist letters, impact on society and eventual impact on the economy, a recent blog post on FontFeed is […]
[…] (a non-profit networking organisation) who’d organized a recent conference. As a recap (clipped from) [The] upcoming Web 2.0 half-day conference is the target of a cease and desist letter from the […]
[…] the sensitized grievances of self-important US institutions and their lawyers. Our host Tim Raftery reports and Shel echoes and Digg amplified, that lawyers for O’Reilly Publishing have copyrighted […]
[…] the American portion of the Web 2.0 Half Day Conference, the buzz machine that the Lads from Cork, Tom Raftery and Tim O’Reilly promoted into the bigtime by a round of communications with little outcome […]