Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

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

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 26, 2006 10:03 AM
from the can't-have-confusion-2.0 dept.
Businesses The Internet Patents
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).
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Pirates, Web 2.0, and Hundred Dollar Laptop 339 comments
A few quick updates on some recent Slashdot stories in Slashback tonight. We have some additional information on the ever-interesting hundred-dollar laptop, the ongoing flap over the trademarking of 'Web 2.0' for conferences, and the shutdown of the Pirate Bay site. Read on for details.
[+] Your Rights Online: O'Reilly Lawyers Set Up Shop in the Patent Office 190 comments
theodp writes "On the same day Netizens fumed over the trademarking of Web 2.0 (R), lawyers for O'Reilly were beating a path to the USPTO to file for a trademark on MAKER FAIRE, lest some Irish scallywag try to co-opt that catchy phrase for a conference. Speaking of NETIZENS, USPTO records show O'Reilly once sought a trademark for that term. And while details are sketchy, USPTO records also indicate that O'Reilly not only sought to trademark the term WEBSITE, it was the plaintiff in a scheduled Trademark Trial involving a defendant who laid claim to the phrase WEB CITE."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0' 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Dibs (Score:5, Funny)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Friday May 26 2006, @10:04AM (#15409821) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • I have the solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2006, @10:06AM (#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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Friday May 26 2006, @10:06AM (#15409843) Homepage Journal
    I recommend we commence immediately on Web 3.0, which is exactly like Web 2.0, only spelt differently.

  • Oh yea? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rev_sanchez (691443) on Friday May 26 2006, @10:07AM (#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.
  • 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.

  • Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <(Satanicpuppy) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday May 26 2006, @10:09AM (#15409863) Journal
    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.
    • 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.

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

      • Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <(Satanicpuppy) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday May 26 2006, @10:31AM (#15410014) Journal
        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.
        • > the real strengths of XML are better understood now than they were then

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

        • Re:Stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by GeckoX (259575) on Friday May 26 2006, @11:04AM (#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.
    • 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, sa
  • And now I am trademarking "Web Infinity" and "Web Infinity + 1"

  • 'Web 2.0' Trademarked? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2006, @10:15AM (#15409900)
    What a fitting metaphor.

  • Nothing to see here. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BarryLoper (928015) on Friday May 26 2006, @10:16AM (#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.

  • Wonderful (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gruuk (18480) on Friday May 26 2006, @10:18AM (#15409914) Homepage
    If we can't use "Web 2.0", what alternatives can we use?

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

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2006, @10:27AM (#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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by drew (2081) on Friday May 26 2006, @10:27AM (#15409987) Homepage
    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".
  • 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 lawyer
  • 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!

  • O'Reilly Radar response... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by philipsblows (180703) on Friday May 26 2006, @10:44AM (#15410104) Homepage
    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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Now at Borders (Score:3, Funny)

    by widget54 (888141) on Friday May 26 2006, @11:28AM (#15410434)
    "Litigation in a nutshell"

  • That's one way... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday May 26 2006, @11:55AM (#15410670)
    ...to cut down on the use of an overused, increasingly meaningless, buzzword.
  • Get your own "Tim O'Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole" graphic here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/153656919/ [flickr.com] It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!

  • Naw, White Wolf has prior art. (Score:3, Funny)

    by geekotourist (80163) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:14PM (#15411190) Journal
    Think White Wolf has dibs here: can't see much difference... Digital Web 2.0" [amazon.com]
    • 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
    • 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.