Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the can't-have-confusion-2.0 dept.

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).

8 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the sad thing is, they don't own any of the technology. It's not even a technology as such, as much as it is a design philosophy-shift based on percieved public demand and commonly available tools. There is no reason we couldn't have done Ajax 5 years ago, it's just that Javascript is more mature, and more reliably supported in browsers, and the real strengths of XML are better understood now than they were then.

      Seems like all they want is the ability to host exclusive conferences on their trademarked topic, which is fine sort of, but I'm irked enough by companies abusing IP law that I'm not even going to think about paying to go to a conference where the topic is as vague as "Web 2.0" and the guys who run it are suing people who try to use "Web 2.0". Screw that. I'll go across the street to the Ajax confrence. At least people agree what that means even if it's overused.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Stupid. by GeckoX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trademarks, my god, I so don't want to go here because it's just common sense, but not even a little bit of it is applied.

      Web 2.0. EVERYONE know's what that means, it's just completely generic.

      It's version 2 of the Web.

      What is the Web? Not something you can trademark that's for sure.

      But ok, it's not really about that, it's about trademarking the name of a convention or trade show.

      So what? Why is that any different?

      I can't trademark Hamburger, and I shouldn't be able to for ANY reason. It's a freaking WORD with MEANING, not a name.

      Sorry, I just really hate what lawyers have done to our society, this is pathetic.

      --
      No Comment.
  2. 'Web 2.0' Trademarked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a fitting metaphor.

  3. Nothing to see here. by BarryLoper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Buzzword or not, it's totally poor form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. O'Reilly Radar response... by philipsblows · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Controversy about our "Web 2.0" service mark
    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.

    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.

  6. Here's a good explanation about how IP rights... by PinglePongle · · Score: 4, Insightful
    http://www.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/amazon_patent.comme nts.pl

    - Very, very insightful -
    ....was granted without adequate review of prior art, and further, that even were it ultimately found valid, such broad patents serve only to hold back further innovation.


    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.