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).

42 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Dibs by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    In an effort to curb the misuse of my technological terms by the industry, I am now trademarking Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, Web 6.0, Web 7.0, Web 8.0, Web 9.0, Web 1337.0, Web 69.0 and Web Pi.

    Web 3.0-9.0 refer to the idea of websites being more and more progressively interactive with the user. The final, Web 9.0, requiring electrodes implanted in your brain so you actually walk between websites and are subject to the sounds & smells of the internet. It is not advised to use 9.0 if you don't have adequate protection against script kiddies.

    Web 1337.0 refers to the idea that websites should be covered in flying toasters and dancing Jesuses and massive abuse of blinking marquee tags.

    I'd describe the other Web x.0s but then Slashdot would be linked to those descriptions and I would be obligated to sue the OSTG.

    This is an unfortunate but necessary move on my part to protect the idea of these terms. On what grounds do I register these trademarks? I have meme maps! And I'm not afraid to publish them!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Dibs by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny
      I am now trademarking... Web Pi.

      I think you are being irrational.

    2. Re:Dibs by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The constant appearance of pun-chains like this one make me feel like we're going in circles.

    3. Re:Dibs by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      In an effort to curb the misuse of my technological terms by the industry, I am now trademarking Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, Web 6.0, Web 7.0, Web 8.0, Web 9.0, Web 1337.0, Web 69.0 and Web Pi.

      Just in case anyone is seriously thinking of doing this, be aware that Trademark protection is only afforded when you use the term. If you don't use the term, your trademark will fall through in any court case.

      I'm not a lawyer, but setting up a website with joke articles about Web 3.0 - Web Pi should allow you to register the term. Whether or not it will be enforcable is a matter you'll need to ask a lawyer. Thankfully, the EFF and/or PJ would probably be willing to listen to your plan, perhaps even provide legal advice. (Maybe. I don't speak for them, so take this with a grain of salt.)

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    4. Re:Dibs by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry but "slow news day at Slashdot" has already been trademarked. Although "slow day at work" is still available if you're interested. ;)

    5. Re:Dibs by mypalmike · · Score: 2, Funny

      You shouldn't trademark pi. It's just not natural.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    6. Re:Dibs by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think he's being a bit transcendental.

      I'm going to trademark Web aleph-null and Web aleph-one.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Dibs by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      The other day I noticed some grafitti on an abandoned shop window:

      "God is unreal"

      I added under it:

      "No he's not. He's just irrational"

      Although I'd guess that few random people on the street will get it the way intended.

      KFG

    8. Re:Dibs by jc42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm going to trademark Web aleph-null and Web aleph-one.

      Well, I'm going to trademark all the names between those.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    9. Re:Dibs by Dan+D. · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is getting infinitely rediculous.

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
  2. I have the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am now creating Web 2.1 and releasing it under a full open creative commons license. Use it however you want.

    Web 2.0 is now deprecated.

  3. Well then... by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I recommend we commence immediately on Web 3.0, which is exactly like Web 2.0, only spelt differently.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Well then... by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      You see, it's SPELLED "Web 2.0", but it's PRONOUNCED "Throat-Wobbler Mangrove".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Well then... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nah. We just need to go to 2.1, and open source the trademark on that. It's certainly a bigger upgrade than most releases.

      Is anyone else more than mildly disappointed that they own a bookshelf full of O'reilly books after reading this?

      --
      My little site.
  4. Oh yea? by rev_sanchez · · Score: 5, Funny

    My conference is going to be Web 2.1 Service Pack 1 Release Candidate 3 Build 5781 and all of those guys are going to feel quite the fool.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  5. "only applies to the titles of industry events" by timeOday · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll believe that when I see it. I know the law says trademarks are compartmentalized, but go start a landscaping business named "Microsoft" and tell me how it goes.

    1. Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A more accurate comparison would be "Windows"

      Microsoft is a "Windows" company
      So are Anderson, Jeld Wen, Pella, and many others.

      (IANAL, but IMO:) Point being, no one (so far as I know) can trademark "Windows". They can trademark "Microsoft:Windows" or "Windows by Anderson", but the object in the title is just to ambiguous. So maybe these companies should be allowed to trademark "[Company Name]'s Web 2.0" but not just "Web 2.0"

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  6. 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: 2, Informative

      In newspaper work, journalists are commonly forbidden from using nouns that originated as product names...For example, you can't use "Kleenex" or "Frisbee" or "Rollerblades" because of litigous companies that are jealous of their trademarks.

      I suppose it's because it's pretty easy to lose a trademark, so you have to be careful, or people could be making "Bob's Frisbee's" and "Joe's Rollerblades" instead of being forced to use the less sexy descriptors.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  7. Dibs 2.0 by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    And now I am trademarking "Web Infinity" and "Web Infinity + 1"

  8. 'Web 2.0' Trademarked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a fitting metaphor.

  9. 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.

  10. Wonderful by Gruuk · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we can't use "Web 2.0", what alternatives can we use?

    Maybe "New Web II: Electric Boogaloo" would do the trick.

    --
    De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
  11. 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.

  12. Cool by drew · · Score: 4, Funny

    While normally I'm not a big fan of trademark silliness, in this case I wholeheartedly approve. Maybe now the stupid meme will finally die.

    Now, if only we could get somebody to trademark the term "AJAX".

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  13. Re:OH RLY? by BaltikaTroika · · Score: 5, Funny
    You must be lost.

    It seems that you're looking for http://digg.com/.

  14. Ireland != US by jmcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. 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.

    1. Re:O'Reilly Radar response... by Thabenksta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Beat me to it.

      Aparently Tim is "Off the Grid", and unable to respond. What's the big deal anyway? OReilly and CMP are businesses trying to make money and have a good time while doing so, just like the rest of us.

      --
      There's nothing wrong with anything - Phillip J. Fry
  16. Not true. by a_greer2005 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I think you're (O'Reillys Bar) wrong.

    The same name thing in differant industries is usually just fine.

  17. 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.
  18. Flawed analogy by smurfsurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. Now at Borders by widget54 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Litigation in a nutshell"

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  20. Re:Filing Objection by saddino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. That's one way... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...to cut down on the use of an overused, increasingly meaningless, buzzword.

  22. O'Reilly "Original Web 2.0 Asshole" Graphic by Thomas+Hawk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get your own "Tim O'Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole" graphic here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/153656919/ It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!

  23. Naw, White Wolf has prior art. by geekotourist · · Score: 2, Funny
    Think White Wolf has dibs here: can't see much difference... Digital Web 2.0"
    • Bunch of geeks talking about how the magic is back? Check
    • Big crash not too long ago in the backhistory? Check
    • Now the rules have changed? Check
    • The right combination of arcane tools will bring about fame and fortune? Check
  24. It's easier for us Fortran programmers. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 3, Funny

    God is REAL unless declared INTEGER. Simple. :-)

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  25. changelog by hakr89 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Web 2 Changelog

    Version 2.0.1
    2006-05-26
    * Bumped version number to make trademark a moot point.

    Version 2.0
    2006-05-25
    * Trademark Registered by O'Reilly.