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).

14 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 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
  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 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.

  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: 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.
  7. 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?
  8. Re:OH RLY? by BaltikaTroika · · Score: 5, Funny
    You must be lost.

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.