Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'
theodp writes "On May 16, the USPTO notified CMP Media, which co-presents the Web 2.0 Conference with O'Reilly, that its trademark for Web 2.0 was entitled to be registered. Eight days later, CMP sicced its lawyers on not-for-profit IT@Cork, taking the networking organization to task for not only using the term Web 2.0 for its free conference, but also for linking to a What is Web 2.0 article penned by Tim O'Reilly." It should be noted that their trademark only applies to the titles of industry events (CMP is a show organizer).
What is the point of coining a meaningless buzzword to describe a perfectly normal evolution of technology, if you're then going to sue everyone who uses it? It's not like Web 2.0 has any hard assets or IP.
That's like Google suing everyone who uses the verbed form of their name.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
What a fitting metaphor.
Well, you wouldn't expect to be able to hold a local gathering of electronics vendors and call it the Electronic Entertainment Expo.
It's not like they can go after you for making an application and saying it's a "Web 2.0 app". In fact, they'd like that because it would validate their existence.
It doesn't really matter if it's 'Web 2.0' or 'AJAX' or whatever buzzword is hot at the moment, it's in poor stead that O'Reilly and CMP have acted in this manner against a small not-for-profit. It seems that this show would only stand to benefit THEM as it's focused on the very same things they're purporting to 'protect', so why would they take action against it?
I would be less inclined to call foul if they were filing suit against someone using their trademark to profit unjustly, but unfortunately it's not. This will only harm O'Reilly's reputation.
Tim, get on the case! Do something about this complete and utter ridiculousness.
O'Reilly and CMP threatened an Irish company over the use of Web 2.0 based on a US application for a service mark it seems. Well unless O'Reilly and CMP have an Irish or EU trademark or service mark, they have no rights to the term in Europe. Perhaps someone should explain that harsh reality to them. In threatening IT@Cork, O'Reilly and CMP have shown themselves to be no better than Jeff Bezos with his One Click patent etc. It is sad to see such a great reputation destroyed by the careless actions of lawyers.
This isn't quite a breakdown of compartmentalization, but MikeRoweSoft already had a somewhat similar run-in with Microsoft regarding trademarks.
I kinda hope they're granted the trademark. Then I won't have to listen to people babbling on about web 2.0 anymore.
That's just an excerpt, follow the link for the whole [brief] comment. They also point out, rightfully so, that they would not be able to have a "LinuxWorld conference," and this is no different. It's a service mark, they have to defend it, end of story.
- Very, very insightful -
It is plainly wrong for companies to take our IP protection on overly broad terms, which are already in the public domain - but to then seek to enforce them is clearly even worse.
The writer of the Open Letter to Jeff Bezos knew what he was talking about.
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
The LinuxWorld example is flawed. Of cause they cannot name their conference LinuxWorld. Preventing anyone from using "Linux" in the name of their conference about Linux, now that is the right analogy to what O'Reilly is doing.
Yes, there is a way to protest (hence the publication of pending registrations), but on what merits? There is no established service mark (either registered or common law) for use of "Web 2.0" for conferences. So CMP looks in the clear for claiming a right on that service mark.
...to cut down on the use of an overused, increasingly meaningless, buzzword.