Comments on: Tim O’Reilly Sends a Cease and Desist to a Non Profit Over the Use of the Term “Web 2.0,” What a Load of Crap http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:09:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14410 Anonymous Tue, 30 May 2006 00:59:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14410 I'm still trying to figure out just exactly what Web 2.0 means! Does anyone know?? I’m still trying to figure out just exactly what Web 2.0 means! Does anyone know??

]]> By: El Cogote http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14411 El Cogote Fri, 26 May 2006 15:13:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14411 Thomas,<br /><br />Inspired by your post on Web 2.0, I did a quick Factiva search and discovered that, although O'Reilly Media may have been the first to register a service mark for "Web 2.0", it was by no means the first to "coin" the term, as Sarah Winge is claiming.<br /><br />In the July 1999 issue of Print magazine, Darcy DiNucci wrote a piece titled "Fragmented Future" about Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0. I managed to track down a copy on the Web that you can find here:<br /><br />http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/383501-1.html<br /><br />Reading it, you can't help but see some similarities between her vision for Web 2.0 and the way the term is used today.<br /><br />A year earlier, in the summer of 1998, a company called Conversa released a new version of their Conversa Web software - a voice-powered browser - and called it "Web 2.0". The software is no longer for sale, but Conversa may still hold the trademark on it.<br /><br />O'Reilly Media is free to make asses of themselves by suing a free conference using the term "Web 2.0." I suppose they are also free to claim they coined the term too. But they're only making asses out of themselves again. Thomas,

Inspired by your post on Web 2.0, I did a quick Factiva search and discovered that, although O’Reilly Media may have been the first to register a service mark for “Web 2.0″, it was by no means the first to “coin” the term, as Sarah Winge is claiming.

In the July 1999 issue of Print magazine, Darcy DiNucci wrote a piece titled “Fragmented Future” about Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0. I managed to track down a copy on the Web that you can find here:

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/383501-1.html

Reading it, you can’t help but see some similarities between her vision for Web 2.0 and the way the term is used today.

A year earlier, in the summer of 1998, a company called Conversa released a new version of their Conversa Web software – a voice-powered browser – and called it “Web 2.0″. The software is no longer for sale, but Conversa may still hold the trademark on it.

O’Reilly Media is free to make asses of themselves by suing a free conference using the term “Web 2.0.” I suppose they are also free to claim they coined the term too. But they’re only making asses out of themselves again.

]]> By: Dave Zatz http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14412 Dave Zatz Fri, 26 May 2006 14:19:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14412 Too late, Blogosphere belongs to me! As does Usenet, pr0n, and AJAX. Oh wait, I think Colgate-Palmolive registered it first. Just like Hormel swiped Spam from Al Gore's Internet. By the way, there is a publishing company using my name - I wonder if I can sue them since I was using Zatz first. ;) Too late, Blogosphere belongs to me! As does Usenet, pr0n, and AJAX. Oh wait, I think Colgate-Palmolive registered it first. Just like Hormel swiped Spam from Al Gore’s Internet. By the way, there is a publishing company using my name – I wonder if I can sue them since I was using Zatz first. ;)

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14413 Anonymous Fri, 26 May 2006 13:56:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14413 http://battellemedia.com/archives/002596.php http://battellemedia.com/archives/002596.php

]]> By: Davis Freeberg http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14414 Davis Freeberg Fri, 26 May 2006 13:03:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14414 This is no different then Forgent trying to assert patent rights on the .jpg after sitting silent for years and allowing the .jpg to become the standard for digital photos. Now all of a sudden they seem to feel that they are losing massive amounts of money because of infringement. It's nothing more then a legal way to try and extort money. Web 2.0 is not a brand, it's a cultural movement. Whether it applies to T-Shirts or Conferences, O'Reilly shouldn't have the right to trademark this term anymore then Tom has the right to try and trademark the term blogosphere. This is no different then Forgent trying to assert patent rights on the .jpg after sitting silent for years and allowing the .jpg to become the standard for digital photos. Now all of a sudden they seem to feel that they are losing massive amounts of money because of infringement. It’s nothing more then a legal way to try and extort money. Web 2.0 is not a brand, it’s a cultural movement. Whether it applies to T-Shirts or Conferences, O’Reilly shouldn’t have the right to trademark this term anymore then Tom has the right to try and trademark the term blogosphere.

]]> By: Thomas Hawk http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14415 Thomas Hawk Fri, 26 May 2006 12:44:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14415 Part of the reason why Web 2.0 exploded as it did is because it was popularized by a whole host of people in a spirit of openness. Had O'Reilly made known his plans to try and contain the phrase Web 2.0 Conference back in 2003 I suspect that many people would not have embraced the term as we have.<br /><br />I know I wouldn't have. <br /><br />This popularization has benefited O'Reilly tremendously. It has been this super positive feeling associated with Web 2.0 and fueled by a whole host of people in the tech community that allowed it to grow like it had. Part of the reason why Web 2.0 exploded as it did is because it was popularized by a whole host of people in a spirit of openness. Had O’Reilly made known his plans to try and contain the phrase Web 2.0 Conference back in 2003 I suspect that many people would not have embraced the term as we have.

I know I wouldn’t have.

This popularization has benefited O’Reilly tremendously. It has been this super positive feeling associated with Web 2.0 and fueled by a whole host of people in the tech community that allowed it to grow like it had.

]]> By: Thomas Hawk http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14416 Thomas Hawk Fri, 26 May 2006 12:41:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14416 Ian, it's ridiculous to try and assert ownership over the phrase Web 2.0 Conference two weeks before the conference. They knew about this much earlier and to wait until the last minute is super bad form.<br /><br />Whether associated with a conference or not, Web 2.0 has become something much greater than a conference and to now try to restrict it's use in any capacity falls under the too little too late category. O'Reilly should have been more vocal about their intention to own the term "Web 2.0" with regards to conferences back in 2003. Ian, it’s ridiculous to try and assert ownership over the phrase Web 2.0 Conference two weeks before the conference. They knew about this much earlier and to wait until the last minute is super bad form.

Whether associated with a conference or not, Web 2.0 has become something much greater than a conference and to now try to restrict it’s use in any capacity falls under the too little too late category. O’Reilly should have been more vocal about their intention to own the term “Web 2.0″ with regards to conferences back in 2003.

]]> By: Ian Betteridge http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14417 Ian Betteridge Fri, 26 May 2006 12:31:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14417 Thomas, no one is trying "assert ownership over" the phrase "Web 2.0". You can call a web site a Web 2.0 site. I could launch a magazine called "Web 2.0". Someone could print "Web 2.0 sucks ass" on a bunch of t shirts - and none of this would infringe on any service mark of O'Reilly/CMP's. <br /><br />What you can't do, and I can't do, and IT@Cork should have known it couldn't do, is create a conference called "Web 2.0 Conference". <br /><br />It's nothing to do with controlling the term, and everything to do with protecting the reputation of a conference than O'Reilly and CMP have worked hard to establish. Thomas, no one is trying “assert ownership over” the phrase “Web 2.0″. You can call a web site a Web 2.0 site. I could launch a magazine called “Web 2.0″. Someone could print “Web 2.0 sucks ass” on a bunch of t shirts – and none of this would infringe on any service mark of O’Reilly/CMP’s.

What you can’t do, and I can’t do, and IT@Cork should have known it couldn’t do, is create a conference called “Web 2.0 Conference”.

It’s nothing to do with controlling the term, and everything to do with protecting the reputation of a conference than O’Reilly and CMP have worked hard to establish.

]]> By: Thomas Hawk http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14418 Thomas Hawk Fri, 26 May 2006 12:19:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14418 Ian, you don't wait two weeks before a non profit is putting on a conference to threaten to sue them when you knew about it much earlier. If O'Reilly objected then he should have been vocal about it much earlier. Even at worst he should have said we'll let this one go, but the next guy that tries this... I seriously doubt O'Reilly would have been damaged to any significant degree to have let this conference go on.<br /><br />Secondly, if Tim O'Reilly was going to assert ownership over the term Web 2.0, he should have done it a long time ago. Instead he waited until a whole host of people adopted it, embraced it, celebrated it and added to the public lexicon, before asserting his right to possess it.<br /><br />It would be like if four years into the Vietnam war protests someone said, oh, you know what? Back four years ago I licensed the peace sign so guess what, you all can't use it anymore.<br /><br />It's too late at this point. Web 2.0 has become something much larger and much more culturally significant than O'Reilly's conference. He lost his ability to control this term when he allowed it to run free as long as it did in the wild.<br /><br />To assert ownership now is disingenious and contrary to the spirit of what we all should be about. Ian, you don’t wait two weeks before a non profit is putting on a conference to threaten to sue them when you knew about it much earlier. If O’Reilly objected then he should have been vocal about it much earlier. Even at worst he should have said we’ll let this one go, but the next guy that tries this… I seriously doubt O’Reilly would have been damaged to any significant degree to have let this conference go on.

Secondly, if Tim O’Reilly was going to assert ownership over the term Web 2.0, he should have done it a long time ago. Instead he waited until a whole host of people adopted it, embraced it, celebrated it and added to the public lexicon, before asserting his right to possess it.

It would be like if four years into the Vietnam war protests someone said, oh, you know what? Back four years ago I licensed the peace sign so guess what, you all can’t use it anymore.

It’s too late at this point. Web 2.0 has become something much larger and much more culturally significant than O’Reilly’s conference. He lost his ability to control this term when he allowed it to run free as long as it did in the wild.

To assert ownership now is disingenious and contrary to the spirit of what we all should be about.

]]> By: Ian Betteridge http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-sends-a-cease-and-desist-to-a-non-profit-over-the-use-of-the-term-web-20-what-a-load-of-crap.html/comment-page-1#comment-14419 Ian Betteridge Fri, 26 May 2006 12:00:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2029#comment-14419 So you think that a company - non-profit or otherwise - trading on the good reputation established by another company in the same field by naming their product identically is acceptable?<br /><br />Because that's what this case is about. Ignore the hippy-dippy bullshit that surrounds this whole Web 2.0 stuff, and that's all you get.<br /><br />O'Reilly/CMP have long organised the Web 2.0 Conference. Someone else decided to make a conference and call it "Web 2.0 Half Day Conference". That's exactly the same as me deciding to organise a "Macworld Half Day Conference" and being surprised when IDG came after my ass. So you think that a company – non-profit or otherwise – trading on the good reputation established by another company in the same field by naming their product identically is acceptable?

Because that’s what this case is about. Ignore the hippy-dippy bullshit that surrounds this whole Web 2.0 stuff, and that’s all you get.

O’Reilly/CMP have long organised the Web 2.0 Conference. Someone else decided to make a conference and call it “Web 2.0 Half Day Conference”. That’s exactly the same as me deciding to organise a “Macworld Half Day Conference” and being surprised when IDG came after my ass.

]]>