« Brin on Cato | Main | Indonesia Quake Resources » O'Reilly's Web 2.0 trademarkO'Reilly has a claim on Web 2.0 as a trademark when used in the name of a conference. Cory has a thoughtful post suggesting that O'Reilly reconsider. O'Reilly always tries to "do no evil" (or has that been trademarked by Google?), so they might agree with Cory, but I personally wish the term would go away. At Polycot we're starting to get requests to build "Web 2.0 sites" as though the term represented something more tangible than an evolution in our thinking about the web (as more like an operating system, and emphasizing its power as a platform for group-forming and collaboration). What's gonna happen when talented people start putting their time and energy into "web businesses" that are built around utilites that would've been Open Source projects a year or two ago? The various pieces that Dale Dougherty and Tim O'Reilly associated with Web 2.0 are important to understand, and I argued before that it's useful to have label for that rich set of memes. But now I'm thinking I'd like to see the term's use limited so that people can zero in on specific elements and patterns. jon posted this at 9:38 AM |
read weblogsky! latest posts: |
Comments
I just kicked off a slide show of the top 1,400 web 2.0 blogs at http://web2.0slides.com and it's been getting some good reviews so far. If you'd blog it, that would be awesome. Worth at least a beer next time I see you.
We included your blog on our new slideshow of Austin Blogs at
http://blogslides.com/austin
I would like to hear about any other blogs you or your readers recommend for this show.
And we're seeking rockstar programmers to help with our big slideshow project.
Posted by: terry | May 27, 2006 6:13 PM
Actually, O'Reilly may *NOT* have a claim on Web 2.0 as a service mark when used in the name of a conference. A genericized trademark is “a trademark or brand name which is often used as the colloquial description for a particular type of product or service as a result of widespread popular or cultural usage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
I have read that in America and other countries, for years, there have been numerous conferences and other events with “Web 2.0” in the name. http://blog.softtechvc.com/2006/05/the_web_20_lega.html
If this is true, then since O’Reilly and his company did not previously enforce their rights and send Cease & Desist letters to *those* conference organizers, it seems to me that “Web 2.0” has been allowed to become a genericized trademark. Hence, trademark rights may no longer be enforceable or at least it may be difficult for O’Reilly and crew to now legally enforce their rights. A long list of other genericized trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Also, see the very brief opinion of The Trademark Blog on this topic: http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2006/05/web_20_v_web_20.html
Posted by: Kal | May 30, 2006 3:21 AM
It was evidently CMP Media, not O'Reilly, that sent the cease and desist. CMP partners with O'Reilly on the Web 2.0 conference.
Posted by: Jon Lebkowsky | May 30, 2006 8:20 PM