Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the can't-have-confusion-2.0 dept.

229

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).

cancel ×

229 comments

Dibs (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409821)

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!

Re:Dibs (1)

observer7 (753034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409861)

must be a slow news day at slashdot ...yawn

Re:Dibs (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410091)

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

Re:Dibs (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409912)

I am now trademarking... Web Pi.

I think you are being irrational.

OT: Quite Amusing (1)

deadlinegrunt (520160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409932)

Completely appreciated - that's the funniest thing I've seen today.

Re:Dibs (0)

955301 (209856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409989)

This conversation is unreal. Trademarking Pi?

Re:Dibs (2, Funny)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410030)

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

Re:Dibs (0)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410173)

That's when you need to square the circle. :)

Re:Dibs (2, Funny)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410148)

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

Re:Dibs (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410061)

On the contrary, he's being transcendental. Those transcendentalists... never done a good thing... (Disclaimer: I am a mathlete)

Re:Dibs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410153)

I am now trademarking... Web Pi.
I think you are being irrational.
actually: Pi e R

(3.141529... is an element of the Rational Numbers)

Re:Dibs (0, Redundant)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410252)

Pi (3.14159..., not 3.141529...) is a transcendental number, and thus is also irrational. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for details.

Also, the set of rational numbers is denoted with a blackboard bold Q, not R. R is the reals, which Pi is indeed a member of. Is that what you meant?

Re:Dibs (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410277)

"3.141529... is an element of the Rational Numbers"

Uh....... You sure about that?

Re:Dibs (1)

MasterKlaus (952420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410282)

ok, that was bad

Re:Dibs (3, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410309)

I think he's being a bit transcendental.

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

Re:Dibs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409981)

Ha! Web Googol

Oh! Yeah!
It's my birthday!.

Re:Dibs (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409992)

You missed out on Web Root 2

It seems like less than 2, but with infinitely greater shades of grey.

Re:Dibs (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410027)

I'm registering "pi + 1", but only "for use in mathematics".

Re:Dibs (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410055)

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.)

Re:Dibs (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410067)

Tough shit - I'm trademarking 'Web' so you and your derivatives are fscked!

Re:Dibs (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410204)

Woohoo! That means Web ME and Web XP are still available...

Re:Dibs (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410323)

That's okay. In the interest of being hip, the next Web will not be called Web 3.0, but Web Cubed.

SHOTS FIRED AT U.S. CAPITOL (-1, Offtopic)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409837)

Initial reports indicate that the extremist right-wing has finally, using a technical term "gone off the deep end" and is trying to invoke civil war.

More news in five less minutes, at 11:00.

I have the solution (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409839)

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.

Well then... (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409843)

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

Re:Well then... (2, Funny)

sharkey (16670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409968)

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

Re:Well then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410041)

Well, I'm afraid its trademarked then.
You owe me .... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Love,
Raymond Luxury-Yacht.

Re:Well then... (5, Interesting)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410038)

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?

Re:Well then... (1)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410171)

Um... No.

Re:Well then... (1)

deadlinegrunt (520160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410194)

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

I was a little at first but then realized that their legal department needs to eat too. These things can be expected as we move from the Information Age to the Litigious Age - so no book burning just yet.

Re:Well then... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410283)

No, I'm pretty happy that I have O'Reilly books, they're great. I'm just sorry that O'Reilly's management is a bunch of bastards. I've always purchased the ORA book reflexively, trusting that it will be at least decent, but after crap like this, I'm hesitant. O'Reilly has tended to do positive things for the computing community, but I have little tolerance for people who exploit so-called "IP" (and no, not what comes after TCP/) and would prefer not to support such a decision. Only question is, are there any technical publishers even in the same league?

Dang. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409847)

Pity. It was a nice line of books, too.

Oh yea? (5, Funny)

rev_sanchez (691443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409851)

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.

Re:Oh yea? (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410366)

Exactly because whose going to buy "8-minute Abs" when you've got the "7-minute abs" DVD right next to it?

"only applies to the titles of industry events" (5, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409854)

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.

Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" (1)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409927)

The problem with Microsoft's trademark is that Microsoft is so ridiculously ubiquitous that no matter where you go, they can probably make a case that some lunkhead is going to confuse you and them.

To be honest, considering the staggering ignorance of the general public when it comes to computing, I can't say as I can't see their point on that matter.

Besides, if you called your landscape company "Microsoft" you'd have a hard time explaining why you chose the name, which certainly wouldn't help your case.

Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409963)

What if you started a fabric/clothing company by that name, named after the "ultra-soft microfibers" you were using?

Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410200)

You will be sued by the shell company holding the patent on "ultra-soft microfibers" for back royalities and unspecified damages. Sorry, that's how business works these days.

Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" (2, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409976)

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

Re:"only applies to the titles of industry events" (2, Insightful)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410070)

This isn't quite a breakdown of compartmentalization, but MikeRoweSoft [theregister.co.uk] 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.

Not true. (2, Informative)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410105)

I [sysco.com] think [apple.com] you're (O'Reillys Bar) [dallasobserver.com] wrong.

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

OH RLY? (1, Funny)

aapold (753705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409856)

And the answer isn't YEAH RLY!

Re:OH RLY? (5, Funny)

BaltikaTroika (809862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409991)

You must be lost.

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

Re:OH RLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410217)

NO WAI!!

Learn to spell, noob (1)

porkmusket (954006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410266)

It's O'Reilly.

Stupid. (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409863)

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.

Re:Stupid. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409885)

That's like Google suing everyone who uses the verbed form of their name.

Like Adobe does [adobe.com] when someone displays a photoshop that they photoshopped with Paint Shop Pro.

Re:Stupid. (2, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409937)

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.

Re:Stupid. (1)

Maiko (534130) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410076)

Probably better to be "Photoshopped" than "Gimped", unless you're into that sort of thing...

Re:Stupid. (1)

deadlinegrunt (520160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409899)

Excellent point. What a beautiful way to kill an emerging technology that nobody has clearly explained with a definitive answer.

Re:Stupid. (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410014)

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.

Re:Stupid. (1)

deadlinegrunt (520160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410114)

I could not agree with you more; well stated much better than my sarcastic remark.

Re:Stupid. (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410190)

> the real strengths of XML are better understood now than they were then

http://xmlsucks.com/ [xmlsucks.com]

Re:Stupid. (3, Insightful)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410245)

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.

Re:Stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409923)

It's a fast and effective way to generate a lot of bad publicity! I predict we start seeing boycotts soon.

Re:Stupid. (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410057)

Boycotting O'Reilly? Hard isn't it.

Maybe this creates a new market for those Dummies books though.

Except that Steve Jobs won't sell them in Apple Stores.

Re:Stupid. (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410176)

Google probably should be suing people who use the verb form of their names in a business context, or at least providing usage guidelines for the word, or they might risk losing their trademark on it. Many former trademarks have been lost because companies did not defend them and they became a generic term for something (aspirin, cellophane, escalator).

Companies need to take some kind of action to protect their trademarks. Many of them provide "usage guides" for their trademarks. Zamboni, for example, says you should always refer to their machines as "Zamboni ice resurfacers" rather than just "Zambonis." No one ever does this of course, but the fact that they're trying is probably good enough to keep their trademark.

Re:Stupid. (1)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410221)

That's like Google suing everyone who uses the verbed form of their name.


That's not so far from the truth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3006486.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Google's problem is one of the paradoxes of having a runaway successful brand. The bigger it gets, the more it becomes part of everyday English language and less a brand in its own right.

Just as we talk about "hoovering" instead of vacuuming, people have started to say "google" to mean search. The word has become an eponym.

Shame on them (1)

IUSR (760153) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409877)

Ages ago my buddies and I announced web 0.1.1 pre-alpha build 1 but we did not register any trademarks just after the web was invented.

Thank Goodness! (1)

Changa_MC (827317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409882)

I'm so glad they did this, because now we can all acknowledge that WEb 2.0 is well and truly played, and move on to new and better buzzwords. With this move will come an opportunity to pick memes taht actually represent real items! Or probably just Web 3.0 dang.

Dibs 2.0 (2, Funny)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409884)

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

Re:Dibs 2.0 (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410025)

Ahem [webfinity.com.au]

'Web 2.0' Trademarked? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409900)

What a fitting metaphor.

Nothing to see here. (3, Insightful)

BarryLoper (928015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409904)

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.

Re:Nothing to see here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410087)

Riiight, they can "only" go after you if you use "Web 2.0" in your conference title or description. Like that's insignificant??????? Are you saying, if it doesn't affect 99.99% of the people who read /., because we're not conference organizers, we should all just sit back and have a beer, then proceed to add value to their trademark by describing our apps and technology add-ons as being "Web 2.0"? I DON'T THINK SO!

Wonderful (3, Funny)

Gruuk (18480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409914)

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

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

Re:Wonderful (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410152)

I recomend Web 2.1

change log
2.1 | more interactive web - all that law crap
2.0 | more interactive web

In related news... (1)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409948)

Bill O'reilly is exercising his trademark on "O'Reilly" all O'Reilly's including Tim may soon have to take on the Prince-like title of "The Tim formerly known as O'Reilly".

Already lost the right to use their trademark (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409950)

I have never once seen Web 2.0 acknowledged as a trademark. Web 2.0 is in common use to describe a certain style of website.

Ergo they have already lost any right to use this trademark.

Web Too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409955)

There you go.

Simple Fix (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409970)

Just call it "it@cork Web Two-Point-Oh Half Day Conference".

Buzzword or not, it's totally poor form (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15409975)

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.

Cool (4, Funny)

drew (2081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15409987)

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".

AJAX is no Web 2.0 (1)

cargoculture (929867) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410042)

Eh? AJAX is actually quite a handy term for a well defined set of technologies that have very clear, useful applications. The term (ands the technologies) may be open to abuse but it's more of a DHTML than a Web 2.0.

Re:Cool (1)

crerwin (971247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410113)

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

I think these [colgate.com] guys do. They don't seem to be too interested in fighting for it though.

Death to "Web 2.0" (1)

Urusai (865560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410196)

Yes! Finally a good use for trademarking/copyrighting/patenting. Now maybe people can call it "client-side DOM scripting" AKA "browser abuse".

MOD PARENT UP (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410295)

Web 2.0 is an ineffably stupid buzzword. Anyone who uses it should shift their paradigm immediately.

First po5t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410010)

to 7his. For [goat.cx]

Dibs (1)

bigbadbuccidaddy (160676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410013)

Dibs on Web 95OSR2, and Web ME.

Buzzwords, legal stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410018)

Phew! Am I glad O'Reilly only release crap book nowadays, so I won't be missing anything worth having by neglecting their merchandise (boycott is such an ugly word).

Ireland != US (2, Insightful)

jmcc (15894) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410020)

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.

Time to use the bulk registrations (1)

s0l3d4d (932623) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410036)

Time to register in bulk Web 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 .... 2007, ... 3000, 4000 ....

Goodbye buzzword! (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410058)

I'd like to encourage everyone to trademark other overused buzzwords and start suing people. Soon, we just might be living in a completely buzzword-free world!

CMP Media? (1)

ploppowaffles (977289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410065)

Same people who bought Black Hat? Sucks.

O'Reilly Radar response... (4, Insightful)

philipsblows (180703) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410104)

Controversy about our "Web 2.0" service mark [oreilly.com]
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.

Re:O'Reilly Radar response... (2, Insightful)

Thabenksta (125165) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410138)

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.

Re:O'Reilly Radar response... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410172)

Aren't they nice? The let them use Web 2.0 this year, and when they want to hold another conference by the then established name next year, then what? They can't? They need to pay a license fee? For what? A term which is in ubiquitous use. Can't use it for conferences about the thing that the term describes though. Yeah, they shouldn't have sent the landsharks first, but that's not all of it. They shouldn't have registered a common name as a trademark. And now they have the nerve to pretend that they have some decency left in their landgrabbing existence by making an exception this year. Those fuckers.

Re:O'Reilly Radar response... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410327)

They also point out, rightfully so, that they would not be able to have a "LinuxWorld conference," and this is no different.

This is a meaningless statement. LinuxWorld isn't a common word and a common versioning scheme. It also isn't an industry buzzword.

It's a service mark, they have to defend it, end of story.

No, that's not the end of the story. The story just becomes "Why is it a service mark in the first place?"

Flawed analogy (2, Insightful)

smurfsurf (892933) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410362)

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.

How is O'Reilly involved in this letter? (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410133)

TFA shows a letter from CMP, which mentions CMP's involvement with O'Reilly, but does not seem to be claiming to act on O'Reilly's behalf. "CMP hereby demands..." "CMP further demands..." but I see no demand from O'Reilly. This seems to be CMP acting to claim trademark on the term "Web 2.0" as it applies to their conferences, not a larger claim by O'Reilly and CMP for ownership of the term in all contexts.

Props. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410165)

I hope they succeed in preventing people from using the dumbest buzzword of the 21st century. I really do.

Somebody please trademark it. (1)

mrjatsun (543322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410183)

So everyone stops using it :-)

Something to consider (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410195)

From the USPTO tarr system:
Current Status: The final review before registration has been completed for this Intent to Use application and it will register in due course.

Date of Status: 2006-05-10

Filing Date: 2003-11-03

GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
International Class: 035
Class Status: Active
Arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology
Basis: 1(a)
First Use Date: 2004-10-05
First Use in Commerce Date: 2004-10-05
International Class: 041
Class Status: Active
Organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology
Basis: 1(a)
First Use Date: 2004-10-05
First Use in Commerce Date: 2004-10-05

They're trying to trademark it for use with business conferences, not copyrighting it for all uses. They applied in November 2003, so this has been pending for a while.

That said, it's pretty dirty pool to lower the boom on a not-for-profit organization over a lousy phrase like Web 2.0, which has little meaning to anyone who actually works with technology on a day-to-day basis. It's not like the phrase is plastered on every piece of software I download or use.

Thank God (1)

dalesun (140319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410201)

This should cause at least some people to stop using the silly term WEB 2.0.

Perhaps it's just me that doesn't "grok" the importance of this "new paradigm," but I don't think it merits a new buzz-term.

But since WEB 2.0 is nearly as clunky and awkward as BLOG, it's sure to become another popular buzz-term.

Here's a good explanation about how IP rights... (4, Insightful)

PinglePongle (8734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410219)

http://www.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/amazon_patent.comme nts.pl [oreilly.com]

- 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.

Re:Here's a good explanation about how IP rights.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410296)

You may now realize this, but patents and trademarks are two completely different things.

Filing Objection (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410258)

Is there a method for filing objections with the USPTO? Maybe if
a group filed the objection, we could get the service mark overturned.

I tnhank you For your time (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410320)

"Web 2.0" Clearly Shown to be Marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15410357)

O'Reilley has done us a service. We can now be clear what is meant by "Web 2.0"(c), namely, a marketing term, just like "Windows 98", "Microsoft Vista", or "Toys R' Us".

Fine. (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15410428)

Just use "Web 3.0" everywhere you'd use "Web 2.0". Argue that, "it is the natural evolution of the web after the Web 2.0 label ran into legal difficulties." In doing so, you're actually helping kill of the stupid buzzword because it starts to lose meaning.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...