Web 2.0 Service Mark Controversy (Tim responding this time)
A lot of people have been waiting for a statement from me (Tim O'Reilly) about the Web 2.0 service mark. I'm back, and here it is. This is a long post, because the issues are complex, and I hope people will read to the end. I'll do my best to set the record straight, and to answer some of the comments and questions that have been flying around. I apologize to Tom for the unnecessary lawyer's letter, and ask that he apologize to me for the way he stirred up the mob. I then explain the back story behind the registration of the Web 2.0 mark, and our current thinking about what to do about it. Because the post is so long, and I don't want to break it in the middle, only this notice about the post appears on the Radar home page. Please click through to read the full posting.
I used to bristle when members of the mainstream press wagged their fingers at the unprofessionalism of bloggers. I looked around at all the bloggers who are, to my mind, practicing great journalism, and wrote off the MSM criticism as fear of the new medium. But now I'm not so sure. The flap about the Web 2.0 Conference trademark has shaken my faith in the collective intelligence of the blogosphere. Of all the hundreds of people who commented on this issue, only a few touched base to do a bit of fact checking. The New York Times, by contrast, was all over doing due-diligence. They talked to everyone they could get their hands on before publishing their story.
While I admit that the cease-and-desist letter to IT@Cork was a faux pas, the blogosphere response and especially the comments on Sara's posts to the Radar blog have been appalling both in their tone (even to the point of one comment, which Marc Hedlund deleted in my absence, implying that I'm a child molester!) and in their lack of any fact checking. (Thanks to those brave blog commenters who suggested that the mob hold off till I was back and able to respond.)
Tom Raftery of IT@Cork must have noted the discrepancy between the friendly email from me that he quoted from and CMP's letter. In fact, the next line of my email, which Tom neglected to quote, was "Best of luck with your event." A number of people in the comment thread drew parallels to my Amazon 1-click patent protest, but they left out one important point: I wrote to Jeff Bezos privately first, and went public with my complaint only after he'd given me the brush off. Given that Tom and I had previously had a conversation where I wished him the best of luck with his conference, while the lawyer's letter came from CMP, I would have thought that he would have wondered whether the right hand knew what the left hand was doing before launching and then encouraging the torrent of net vitriol that's come our way. He did call CMP to talk to the lawyer who wrote the letter, but he never tried to contact me. While he acknowledges that the letter was from CMP, he used O'Reilly's name in the headline and repeatedly throughout the piece for maximum net impact. So while we owe Tom an apology for heavy-handed tactics, I think Tom owes us an apology for the way he responded.
Now, I want to address the deeper issue that's been raised, about whether it's appropriate for anyone to hold a trademark on the term Web 2.0, and to give some backstory on how this happened.
- MediaLive (now a division of CMP) routinely files for trademarks (a service mark is a special kind of trademark) on the name of any new conference they start. In fact, Eric Faurot, the head of the group, told me recently that after the sale, they had to review the status of literally hundreds of worldwide trademarks owned by MediaLive. Some of these conference trademarks are very well known -- Comdex, Interop, Voicecon -- and MediaLive (and CMP) put great store in protecting the conference brands they create.
- MediaLive filed for the trademark on the Web 2.0 Conference back in November 2003, when they first entered into the partnership agreement with O'Reilly on this conference. This was before Web 2.0 became such a popular term -- the filing actually preceded the first conference. However, I wasn't personally aware of this trademark filing till this past February, as a result of discussions with CMP after the MediaLive purchase.
- O'Reilly also values its trademarks -- as do other companies and individuals aligned with the values of openness and sharing. (I'll note that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, that Apache is a trademark of the Apache Software Foundation, Mozilla and Firefox are trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation, Wikipedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, and so on.) At O'Reilly, we've even had to send a cease-and-desist letter once, to a company that was publishing technical books with the picture of an animal on the cover. That's what trademark law is for, to prevent people from imitating other people's brands for similar products with the result that customers get the
products confused. In most cases, though, especially with non-commercial users, we've usually found it sufficient to send an email asking the non-commercial user to protect our trademark by acknowledging our ownership of it. We've even licensed our trademarks for commercial use when the use is clearly complementary and not confusing in the marketplace. See for example our policies about the use of the Camel image, which is our trademark for Perl. - CMP let us know recently that they were worried about potential dilution of the conference brand by other companies putting on Web 2.0 related conferences using the same name, and I agreed with them that it was an issue that we needed to deal with. I was not aware, however, that CMP intended to send out cease and desist letters to anyone in the short term, let alone to a non-profit organization with whom I'd previously corresponded about the event they were putting on. (Gina Blaber, the head of our conference team, was aware of the letter, however, and approved it, and that's why Sara Winge, in her postings, did not disclaim O'Reilly's responsibility.)
- Neither CMP nor O'Reilly sued anyone, as has widely been misreported. A C&D letter is not a lawsuit. It is not even a threat of a lawsuit. It is a routine first step in trademark enforcement -- and as Sara noted in her earlier post, it is in fact required of any company that wants to protect a trademark. You have to let people know that you believe they are infringing your mark. I still remember the alarm I felt the first time I received a cease-and-desist letter, early in my career, so I have some sympathy with Tom's reaction. (The letter was from AT&T, warning us that we were using their trademark Unix incorrectly in our books because we were using it as a noun, rather than as an adjective, as they required. They wanted us to say "the Unix operating system" throughout.) And while CMP's letter may appear harsh to those who've never seen one, it is actually relatively mild compared to many such legal letters I've seen over the years. For those of us who aren't lawyers, the special language that lawyers use to cover their various bases is as odd and arcane as a Perl program might appear to most lawyers. That being said, it seems to me that given the non-commercial nature of the event in question, a friendly email simply asking IT@Cork to acknowledge the trademark would have been sufficient. That's what I would have done had I been around when this was coming down. And I apologize to IT@Cork for the organizational failure that led to them getting a legal letter rather than a simple email query or phone call.
- Just to be clear, neither CMP or O'Reilly is claiming the right to all use of the term Web 2.0, as some of the posters assert. We just want to keep other conference companies from putting on events that trade on the name and concept that we created. And don't tell me it's not possible to have a Web 2.0-related conference without using Web 2.0 in the name! Microsoft's Mix 06, Google's Zeitgeist, the Ajax Experience -- these are all web 2.0-related conferences that don't use the name.
- The success of the Web 2.0 conferences and the usefulness of the term admittedly complicates the Web 2.0 trademark situation. With a name like LinuxWorld (Sara's analogy), the subject of the conference (Linux) and its trademarked name (LinuxWorld) are not one and the same. But with Web 2.0, the name was originally conceived only as the name for a conference and Cory Doctorow's comments are very much on point. We created a meme that has legs beyond the conference space, and there's a real tension between the desire to protect the trademark on the conference and the desire for people to talk about, meet about, and otherwise engage with what has turned out to be the name for the next big thing in the computer industry. This is clearly a problem that we'll need to figure out. We're hoping we can come up with some guidelines that help balance these two factors. Mozilla's trademark page is a good example of the kind of balancing act that is required.
- I don't believe that the arguments about prior use of the term, or about "genericization" have a legal -- or even a moral -- basis. No one was using the term "Web 2.0" with its current meaning before we launched the Web 2.0 conference in October 2004, and the subsequent widespread use of the term Web 2.0 to describe the phenomenon itself is outside the scope of the trademark. The trademark is only for events. Trademarks aren't like patents, where any prior art (theoretically) prevents registration. A trademark is for the continuous use of a brand in a specific field of commerce. In my conversations with CMP, they've made this point. One of their flagship conferences is called Software Development -- clearly words that have been used before the trademark was registered. They were able to obtain that trademark for a conference to prevent other companies from building copycat conferences based on their success.
- Yes, I really was out of touch till late Sunday night, houseboating on Lake Powell for a week with my family and some old friends. While I took my cellphone and left both my number and my daughter's for people to contact me in an emergency, it turns out that Verizon is the only service that works on the lake (and even it is very spotty) and my phone is on T-mobile and hers on Sprint. And even then, I didn't have my laptop with me, and so I didn't get to actually start reading up on this situation and talking to people until Monday morning. And as I've suggested above, it is worthwhile to talk and think before you post, hence the delay in this response.
I'm not sure yet quite how to resolve the situation, and in any event, it's not completely under my control. CMP, not O'Reilly, filed for the trademark, and we're partners in the conference, so I can't make a unilateral decision. We can't leap to a solution because two companies (and a complicated legal situation) are involved. But as I noted above, I do believe in trademark. It's perfectly legitimate for a company to file for and own a trademark on a product they create in order to keep others from creating an imitation product that would potentially be confused with the original product.
But I'm really mindful of the fact that Web 2.0 has become so successful as a meme that we're not looking at a traditional brand name situation. This controversy is also bad for my most important brand, my own name, especially since O'Reilly and not CMP is taking all the heat! So I'm going to be talking with CMP about this situation over the next couple of days, and will see if we can come up with a solution that will satisfy our reasonable desire to protect the name of the conference while taking into account the dual role of “Web2.0” -- as a brand for our conferences and as a handy meme for discussions of this phenomenal technology.
And while I'm disappointed in the vitriol and personal attacks and the failure to engage in real conversation, I'm also aware that the passion you have all expressed says something powerful about how important O'Reilly is to you, and how much you expect of us. That's a good feeling. We really do try to do the right thing. We don't always succeed, and sometimes we really screw up, but I hope that those of you who seem to assume the worst are doing so only because it's so important to you to have role models in business that you can respect. The folks at CMP are also good folks, and don't deserve your abuse either.
Your passion also says something powerful about the nerve we struck with the term Web 2.0. We're delighted that it has come to mean so much to so many people, and we want that enthusiasm to continue.
I would, as a parting bit of advice, point to an excellent posting by Anil Dash from back in 2004, entitled Learning from Experience. Anil wrote, after a dustup between Cory Doctorow and the magazine Fast Company:
"One of the things I've learned of late is that, despite being a wonderful, generous community of truly warm-hearted people, sometimes the blog world likes nothing more than a good old-fashioned pile-on... [But] what I'd like to do is propose a new model for responding to the blogosphere's frequent and characteristic calls to action against Stuff That Sucks. First, read the link. Don't go being a slashdot flameboy. Read the thing that's being linked to. Second, we're good at collectively ferreting out information, so let's find the person responsible.... And then? Follow up. They'll make changes, as quickly as they can, though in most organizations that's not all that fast.... My last request, though I suspect it's not likely to be adopted, is that people acknowledge the change when it happens."
Understanding how and why screwups happen, and trying to engage with the right people to fix them, is way better than name-calling. We got the message loud and clear that the water here is muddy. But I don't think that anyone deserves the kind of abuse that's been flying around here. Thanks for your patience while we come up with a solution.
tags:
| comments: 313
| Sphere It
submit: 
Subscribe to Comments on this Entry:
0 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4699
Comments: 313
Thanks for your thorough explanation, Tim. You've always run your business with integrity and thoughtfulness.
It's an unfortunate consequence of our page view- and advertising-driven online world that pile-ons are at once anticipated, reviled and encouraged. I know I've been guilty of exploiting that dynamic before. To the attention getters go the spoils.
A sensible post and well worth reading. I think the core of the issue is the analogy with LinuxWorld and Linux and the way that Web 2.0 is more than just a conference. Furthermore the earlier posts implied that the trademark applied for was "Web 2.0" in the use of live events. Now this covers a lot of ground from large conferences down to training seesions and anything inbetween. It now seems as if you are clarifying this and saying that the actual trademark application is for the name "Web 2.0 Conference". While this is quite broad it would still allow other uses of the phrase "Web 2.0" such as "The John Doe Web 2.0 Workshop". It would be appreciated if you could clarify the scope and intent of the trademark application - thanks.
I agree a sensible post, but I wonder why no one in O'Reilly or CMP could have written a similar post to defuse this earlier. The earlier corporate responses, while factually correct, for want of a better term lacked soul, they read like something a faceless corporation would write, and I think the Web 2.0 and techical community, perhaps felt aggrieved.
I'm glad to see a well thought-out response. I think it's good that people had a weekend to digest the controversy before reading your post (they probably wouldn't have done much more than skim it if you had made it on Friday).
It definitely strikes me that there's an inherent conflict in wanting to protect Web 2.0 as a mark and wanting it to become popular and generic. After all, nobody's interested in building O'Reilly's Web 2.0, but we are interested in bringing the Web to a level of community, rapid development, rich clients, user-friendliness, and interactivity that it should have had 8 years ago. Lacking a name, Web 2.0 has filled the void (very much with O'Reilly's help). Neither the name nor the concept are at all essential to this change, but they do bring a useful focus (not to mention a marketing buzzword) to the table. If I were you, I'd drop any interest in protecting it as a mark, and push for it to become as broadly used as possible. The fairly simple mistake from last week has probably hurt this cause significantly, and will take some doing to convince people to rally around, teach classes on, and run conferences about Web 2.0 with the same fervor that they seemed to be doing before. Anyone organizing a conference around new Web technologies is going to think twice about including Web 2.0 in the name, I think.
People are now going to feel that they have to tread lightly with this term (and your latest post does too little to mitigate this new fear). Since the name (i.e., focal point, rallying cry, etc.) is so much of what Web 2.0 is at this point, that might kill it altogether--at the very least it will hold it back. People will now look to other things to name their conferences. This can only be a good thing, however, since it will force them to think about what Web 2.0 is, since the name so conveniently blankets the concept.
May I kibbitz?
Yes, the dog-pile phenomenon blows. Some of us have suffered major career setbacks from similar (ahem). I'm sympathetic and think your claims and reasoning is basically sound.
Nevertheless:
- In the future, always pick something that is clearly a coined brand name for conferences. "Usenix," not "Unix," etc.
- If at all an option, own the trademarks for your conferences -- don't let partners take them. Pick new partners if you need to -- as you've seen, it's clearly an O'Reilly brand (de facto, not by ownership).
- Since "Web 2.0" violates both principles and is currently both a hot topic and a problem: pick a new name. Let CMP do whatever the heck they need to do but walk away from the issue. Anyway -- the "2.0" is too limiting. "Webolution" is a terrible idea but something like that.
-t
p.s.: You will never again has a chance to rebrand this conference with the same amazing upside of the chance you have at the moment.
-t
Hi Tim
Great response! I was one of the people who said on Nat's post that we should wait till we have heard from you. Indeed a thoughful response. shall blog more later(and continue to buy O Reilly books!) kind rgds Ajit
Oh, and to your other point, I think you have good reason to take a certain amount of pride at the outrage. People do want to believe in good companies. Pretty much every step in the unfolding of this controversy up until your post was very much at odds with the popular image of O'Reilly, and I think that that really disappointed people. Nobody would think twice about a company like Microsoft swinging its axe around, but watching O'Reilly or Amazon do it (or watching Google compromise themselves to gain entry into China) really gives the impression that somewhere something got lost or forgotten. As for Web 2.0, there were a large number of snarky responses amounting to the notion that the term was useless anyway. Nevertheless, it still carries a strong association with important concepts that we do care about that watching these events is not unlike the feeling that I imagine I would get if DHH sent a C&D to the Grails project or PHP on Trax or something (not that he has that legal power, since Rails is free and open, but still).
I find the whole thing to be silly. Yes, the entire issue and even the responses. Had I received such a letter, I would have immediately responded by apologizing for offending the lawyers. Then I would say, let's go with Web 2.1 Conference, afterall, it is time to upgrade.
:)
O, forgot to say, I and my collegues did do our research when the stuff hit the fan... however, despite what we learned and all the official responses; our favor for the O'Reilly brand is significantly diminished. By significantly I mean, it will likely always influence my thoughts when deciding to purchase O'Reilly branded material.
Tim, thank you for your reply. My main concern was the practice of sending out C&Ds to non-profits without a prior attempt at solving the issues through direct discussions. As I've wrote earlier, I don't care about the "Web 2.0" trademark controversy per se. Your response fully addressed my concern w.r.t. the perceived legal bullying, which turned out to be a misunderstanding and mishap. I'm fully satisfied in this respect. And as you may have read, not all comments had been vitriolic. I hope your clarification will help things calm down. Best of luck!
Web 2.0 is much more generic than Linux, Wikipedia or Apache.
I would have thought that you of all people would have anticipated the reaction of the blogging community from securing IPR on the term.
Why you are remotely concerned about the 'potential dilution' of the term when used by other conferences baffles me.
Is it just me or is a bubble about to burst?
I just think that the blogosphere has become a sort of mob mentality. It's funny how blogs which were freeform are now emulating life and typical journalism rules where everyone follows the most popular path to readership.
Here is the issue: If it wasn't a big company that was complaining about the use of their trademark, the masses would be rooting for the underdog. See the 'patent dispute with Blackberry' and 'Embedding content in IE'
I think Tim didn't even need to respond publically but I think it was a definite gesture of goodwill and well said.
O'Reilly helped create the meme Web 2.0.
You then spread it widely by having a conference, speaking about it., blogging about it, and others followed your lead
The term was them trademarked either by you directly or buy a partner with your agreement.
The Partner with your tacit approval sends legal correspondance
The correspondance sparks a huge debate As a result O'Reilly not the Partner suffers a PR black eye
Is this the law of unintended consequences or could you
Tim,or someone else within O'Reilly NOT have seen the looming conflict - when Web 2.0 as a term became so widespread.
you must have noticed the Web 2.0 meme heading towards ubiquity, it was and is inevitable that someone would seek to use it in many ways, a conference being a distinct and likely possibility.
I find Tim's article a healthy response, but it would be better if it stuck to the point (the mainstream media vs blogosphere debate could have been saved for another article) and if the examples were more salient.
For example the "Software Development" conference; I assume the servicemark entitles the owners to exclusive use of that common phrase as an event title when that is the entire title. In other words, other people can still use the term "Software Development" as part of the title of an event, such as something like "Norwegian Software Development Trends in Whale Migration Patterns Conference" wouldn't be an infringement.
The position being taken here is altogether different. It is that the (now common) term Web 2.0 cannot be used by anyone else as even part of a conference title. No customer would confuse "The MTV Web 2.0 Beavis and Butthead Conference" with the one in question...so why try to limit its use? How does that protect the public? Why not servicemark "The Web2.0 Conference" in its entirety, instead?
The benefits to the servicemark holder are obvious...it's the benefit to the public that I haven't grasped.
This is what I feel needs to be addressed plainly without tangents. This is so much different than all of the examples provided in the post (IMO).
One of Tim's tangents did strike a chord with me, and that was the one about "corporate role models." Frankly, yes, I do hold O'Reilly up to a high standard, and I want to be able to continue doing that.
Sorry but your beloved term "Web 2.0" is already on its way down the crapper, where it should have stayed.
Web 2.0 is much more generic than Linux, Wikipedia or Apache.
As Tim notes, the term "Web 2.0" has become a big meme over the last few years. They could have named the conference "The NEW World Wide Web Conference", or "Web Version 2.0 Conference", but instead it became "Web 2.0 Conference". Who would have know that Web 2.0 would have become a powerful concept? The conference became an idea. Go figure.
Tim: Keep up the good work!
more and more the blogosphere != thoughtful.
perhaps ...the conference previously called web 2.0 :-).
Alan is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think its a bit premature to say that this "will likely always influence my thoughts when deciding to purchase O'Reilly branded material." These things happen, and I'm more likely to judge someone by how they react to controversy then their ability to avoid it. I think Tim and company have handled this event as gracefully as I've ever seen, so kudo's to them.
I will continue to buy my material based upon whats between the pages, not who published it, but my confidence in O'Reilly's editors and authors remains intact.
After returning from a 2 week vacation, I caught a few bits of this saga in my aggregator. After 3 minutes worth of reading, I shook my head and said (out loud--to my cats, I think) "I can't believe everyone is being so stupid."
I then marked the whole series as "read" pending your return.
I think we can safely use this as an example of the speed/accuracy tradeoff in reporting "news" stories.
I'll leave the legal issues for Perry Mason but O'Reilly provides a real ecosystem outside of the corporate environment for lots of smart people to exist and thrive commercially as authors, speakers, consultants, highly productive technologists and so forth.
In order for them to be able to do this they have to be a successful business and make money. Perhaps they should have kept the rights rather than give or share them with CMP but I'd certainly prefer O'Reilly to be the holder of these rights than companies like IBM or Microsoft.
Maybe there needs to be an O'Reilly Foundation that holds these rights and ensures that they are used the right way.
I'm surprised that after all O'Reilly has done for the industry they are so quickly piled upon by the online community, informed or otherwise.
I appreciate the response to the question at issue. I don't, however, appreciate the condescension implied in the 'geez you guys, if only you'd done your research, you would have seen the light'. Many of us did do the research. I'm still very interested in the first line of that letter that was sent to Tom. I requested, through several channels, a clean, direct response from many o'reilly people. It seems only the New York Times has access to that information... not exactly comforting news for we mob.
The worry, from many of us, is whether its possible to be a successful company and not be in your position. That position is "well, it's not our fault, our partners did it". Your response does not quiet my concerns...
I'm with retail science on this. It's a pretty generic term, and one that was sure to inflame some people...
Tim,
I'm very glad to have taken the time to read your entire post. It was calm and well thought out. Sometimes thinking before you speak (or blog) is still the best advice. Your mature response in the midst of the firestorm will do you well in support of your primary businesses.
Just seeing your mature attitude and willingness to accept any reponsibility for your actions or those of your employees has caused me to decide to put O'Reilly branded products at the top of my list when considering similar products from other publishers.
-Thomas G Sluder -- Dover, Delaware, USA
Regarding the "pile-on" effect. You really should consider what it means... I was scanning the horizon for a few O'Reilly defenders and found a few but I think it indicates something about the what O'Reilly means in the overall scheme of things: an unfortunate consequence of success and scale but still a plea to re-connect to a base of thinkers and leaders on the net. Maybe O'Reilly lost a bit of feeling at the edges...
The timing of the situation obviously fed the monster that emerged... empower more voices, Tim.
As in "Tag... be my voice... I need a vacation."
The voice of O'Reilly was corporate and firmly rooted in legal and marketing spin. Timid. IMHO.
O'Reilly has ALWAYS had a generic approach to branding... that's why the CMP 'C&D' approach makes so little sense (Open Source, P2P)... you track the meme's and marketing information to educate the late adopter. Imitation is the most sincere form of success for your efforts. The real pro's in conferencing wouldn't open themselves to a claim against earnings... only the Non-Profits that just want to clarify a conference without marketing the meme.
PS> I think it might be time to extend an olive branch to Dave Winer. I admire the fact that you hold him accountable for being rude but I think he's spent enough time in the penalty box. He's converted his entire act to Open Source and deserves to speak at an upcoming conference on his OPML efforts... or maybe some kind of life-time achievement event. Just think out loud here: Build bridges.
My sympathies for the vitriol that has been poured on you and the company since this non-event started. Its unfortunate that this sort of thing doesn't seem to be slowing... (even if the tone is at least civil)
Thanks for the explanation - it was good to see the whole story. Hope everything works out (I'll still be buying - because the quality of your products speaks for itself).
No, hold on a moment, this hagiography's getting out of hand.
Why do you think it should have been Tom Rafferty's job to sort out a communication problem between you and CMP?
Why do CMP believe the trademark application even holds in Ireland?
Why haven't CMP sent a C&D to d.Construct for their 'Web 2.0 Conference' in the UK, at which Cory Doctorow was a speaker?
Why haven't CMP saent a C&D or to the organisers of 'Mesh, Canada's Web 2.0 Conference'?
Why haven't CMP sent a C&D to the Irish government for Enterprise Ireland's Web 2.0 Conference if it really was so important to protect your supposed trademark for conferences and events?
After all, the NYT quotes Eric Faurot as saying, "Not protecting your trademark is a bad business practice". It seems to me CMP's already been doing lots of not protecting. Contra the NYT, the legal nuances are heeded in the blogosphere but maybe not at CMP or by you.
I hope you enjoyed Lake Powell. The red sandstone looks awesome with the water level down as low as it's been recently.
Some of the guys in my Irish reading space could do with the same kind of warm weather kayaking--they've beat this web 2.0 adjective senseless while you've been out on the lake.
Regretfully in society the most vocal portions tend to be the few that lack the ability to sway the masses with a valid well thought out argument. What I saw being posted was a lot of personal attacks without foundation and done in a fashion lacking any human compassion or respect.
We all have the freedom to our opinions and being able to present them in a responsible, respectful and ethical manner. Sadly this is lost on some bloggers.
Most people would never think to engage in a conversation with their family, friends, employers or other persons with such venom. What is it about blogging that creates license to act out like spoiled child and speak with such disrespect and contempt. Truly this episode is sad.
Tim has expressed his point and some have expressed their concern. Too many however, have announced their inability to act with intelligence or common courtesy.
Like I said the other day and was laughingly mocked for. There is so much more in life that is important and that people can expend energy towards other than wild tyrades in the hope of gaining attention. Enjoy technology but keep it in perspective. This was a C&D to, yes a non-profit. So what!!! I'll wait to flip out when a loved one dies in a tragedy or I find out I have cancer. But even then, I will act with respect for myself and others.
As Tim suggested, I looked into it and whether or not it feels warm and fuzzy to me, CMP and O'Reilly have to do what they did. They are obligated to by law. Nobody said life was warm and fuzzy even though we would all like it to be. The end.
Welcome back, I bet most of us understand it's not easy to come back to find piles of criticism. But... sigh. I was hoping for something better in regards to your stance of disallowing the use of Web 2.0 in conference titles -- not for the sake of Web 2.0, but for the sake of O'Reilly (because the community is moving on to new terms). Also please note that there is no single blogosphere (there are several ones, with the usual good and bad) and we all need to deal with comment trolls -- it's better to ignore them than shower them with attention. Good luck further digesting the issue with CMP.
The heavy, immediate and overwhelming response was precisely because it was O'Reilly (for practical purposes, nobody knows what CMP is) behind the c&d. Any other company and such behavior would have been accepted- in fact, the term would not have been as widely used as it is if the name came from a corporation like Microsoft or Yahoo with a less stellar record of corporate citizenship.
If your reputation is what drives your company and your reputation rides on principles that bloggers and geeks take seriously- privacy, fair use, free/open-ness- you would be better served by keeping your lawyers (and those of people who speak for you) on a much shorter leash. People who represent the O'Reilly name must know what they represent and how serious a C&D letter can be to members of the geek/blogger community.
"I apologize to Tom for the unnecessary lawyer's letter, and ask that he apologize to me for the way he stirred up the mob."
I'm very sorry but that's not going to happen. You should apologize for calling the bloggers a mob. You are digging the hole deeper. Take a course in public relations 101. Imagine that the makers of Tylenol ask the press to apologize for stirring up the mob. I bet they'd be out of business right away. I bet you'll be out of business pretty soon too with an attitude like that Mr. O'Reilly. Damage control is not done with an attitude, dude.
a couple more points.
Due dilligence from the NYT is probably not difficult/surprising considering you write op-ed pieces for them.
You did not address the fact that there's no service mark rights in Ireland.
Tom's initial response was a request for advice. The response from o'reilly didn't mitigate anything. I think his actions were fine. (i met him for the first time when he appeared on our webcast)
mmm...
If it's OK with you folks, I'm going to copyright the term "pile-on" and any of it's deviations (i.e., pylon, piallon, pie lon, etc.).
Tim,
This is a great response. Other companies should learn from your example. There will always be miscommunications, and the best way to deal with them is head-on.
--Pat
Tim,
You still don't get it and are continuing to dig deeper in the hole. I have read the posts thoroughly and also have experience with trademarks. The issue is NOT that you/CMP sent a cease and desist or in other words, were trying to protect your trademark.
The problem is that you/CMP never indicated that for the past 3 years, Web 2.0 was your pending trademark. Infact, you encouraged common usage of the term with your articles. And it is only now that you/CMP have got the trademark registration (it took 3 years, but now you finally have it !), and that is why you are letting the legal dogs loose. Your post does not resolve the issue that you/CMP acted/are acting in bad faith and cheated an entire geek community.
Trust me Tim, geeks are the most intelligent people around, and even a geek mob DOES read the article before commenting. The geeks are right, and you are wrong. Just analyze the situation more carefully and drop the Web 2.0 trademark for your conference.
I agree with the post above. Great to tell your side of the story, and express your feelings about how you think bloggers did not respond appropriately. That is useful, but let that be at that. If I understand you right, you want IT@cork to apologize for a posting a Cease and Desist Letter that your staff Oked? That is an issue for your staff. Non-profits without access to high powered lawyers are going to do what they can to survive. Sure, it must have hurt to read some of the blogosphere, but it has no doubt benefitted you in the past, as well. Better to take responsibility for your own actions. If you want people reach out to you personally, maybe it is not best to send them such letters.
To be honest, I think you should be asking more than just Tom to apologize: there were a blog posts that were definitely fomenting the situation far more than Tom's was. If nothing else, it was instructive to see whom in the blogosphere was actually in it for the sensationalism, and who was actually a reasonable human being.
That said, I don't personally see how the value in owning this particular service mark even comes close to exceeding the value of O'Reilly's reputation, and I think that should play heavily in any ultimate decision on what to do going forward, but frankly, I'd be much happier with O'Reilly having the service mark than I would with CMP, or any other company for that matter. I assume that if O'Reilly or CMP hadn't registered for it, someone else could have, and frankly, that seems to me to be a much worse situation.
With that in mind, at the moment, I tend to agree with the above commenter that suggested that O'Reilly insist upon being the actual owner of trademarks in the future, and not the conference partner.
Hmm, following the whole development with some bemusement, I can't help but notice a few things...
Geeks may be intelligent, but as some of the above posts show, they are also naive at times.
One commenter notes that the responses from O'Reilly before were typical corporate speak ('spin') - but now that Tim writes a non-corporate speak response ('mob'), it's not appreciated either.
There are references to ORA digging its hole deeper, and that Tim's post is not an acceptable resolution - but I don't see many constructive alternatives being offered.
And good grief, who of us can truly say that they never made a mistake? It happens to everyone.
Regrettably, those few of us (and I worked to recruit some of them) who counseled caution that this affair was CMP's error and not yours were made fools both by Ms. Winge's response, and by the second letter which it@cork received, which demanded that they swear never to use the term again. Those added fuel to a hot fire. All that was needed from ORA at the time was, "We'll be reassessing this; more soon."
Here is my prescription for how you could have handled this issue, in an O'Reilly-style way:
1) Announce that CMP was about to receive the servicemark.
2) Note that, since the filing, many web 2.0 events have occurred.
3) Indicate your desire to strengthen the Web 2.0 Conference brand.
4) Ask the web community for feedback on how to proceed.
A point that you didn't address in your piece is the question of whether ORA or CMP has made the requisite effort to defend your brand between the first Web 2.0 Conference and last week. It seems that noone had any idea that 'Web 2.0 <event>' was a pending trademark.
Note that my blog uses the term 'web 2.5'. I may one day organize a conference by that name. I do not expect to hear from your lawyers about it. But if I do, I may make the best of the situation for publicity's sake!
Regarding all the vitriol, surely you'd already noticed that humans are a mixed bag, with some rather unfortunate, common tendencies?
Gosh, I agree with the posts immediately above from Anonymous and SorenG.
It's not hard to see how this happened, and I don't doubt your amiable intentions, but:
(a) Don't expect anybody to apologize for being stung by a cease and desist letter from a law firm representing you (even if they are representing others as well), or for looking about for support in resisting it; that's ridiculous. A cease and desist letter from a lawyer is a deliberately inflicted slap in the face, and they usually read that way. Further, your own unusually high credibility in the community establishes a reasonable presumption that the recipient might need wide support to resist this cost-effectively.
(b) The inapplicability of your analogies to other trade marks is established by the fact that we all know that 99.8% of the time when we talk about 'Web 2.0' these days we're not thinking even for a moment about the conference (and I've attended them since the first one). We're just not. To expect anyone to believe otherwise is silly.
Far better (particularly if as you suggest your position still has to be worked out with CMP) to simply apologize as you did, point out the incivility of some of the responses, and defer a fuller response until you are ready. In my view everything else you said above has the unfortunate efect of just digging you and your brand and your company in deeper than you were before.
/my 2 cents.
Thank you, Tim, for your post.
This situation, more than a any other, has crystallized for me that businesses participating on the internet, and the people who are influenced by them (whether they are clients or not), need to better understand each other. If you look over our short history on the internet, you can find all kinds of evidence of companies trying to do business as usual, or what they think of as business as usual, only to incur vitrolic reactions.
There are three problems that I can see. The first is that most people don't have the business background to understand that some of the scary things that happen is business as usual. The second is that when something for a business becomes business as usual, no one bothers thinking through whether it might have a different outcome for some particular situation. The third problem is that there are companies out there who have chosen, out of malice or fear, to take extreme action against individuals, that *justify* a hue and cry.
But at the end of the day, I would dare say that out of all the legitimate businesses in the world, most of them are run by people who genuinely mean the best, but simply don't want to be anyone's doormat. And I can certainly appreciate business owners feeling that way.
I have no clue what the answer is to this mesh of problems, but if there's one thing that I'm taking as a good thing from this unfortunate situation, it's that, for me at least, the problem is now much clearer, and that's an important first step. I hope that there are people who can carry this conversation further and help us work out what we can do to better this.
You folks can do whatever you like with your Web 2.0 TM and/or SM, the term is unfortunately now a joke.
Good luck with the next meme.
Tim,
I was one of the irresponsible bloggers who piled on. I want you to know that I'm embarrased by this and also want to apologize to you personally for attacking you with such vengence and for calling you an asshole. I am sorry. This was clearly out of line and is something that I deeply regret.
http://thomashawk.com/2006/05/apologies-galore-why-i-owe-one-to-tim.html
One factor that should be taken into account is that the presence of abusive comments legitimises abusive comments. It creates a positive feedback loop that is further fed by the fact that there is a significant population of people who enjoy making abusive comments in places where they know they will be seen (hot web controversies being a favorite fishing spot). This is why you have a number of people deliberately misunderstanding the difference between 'web 2.0' as a label for taggable, application oriented, crowdwise web offerings and the use of 'Web 2.0' as a service mark for conferences.
sometimes "harnessing collective intelligence", may not be the smart thing to do :-)
Can anyone clarify whether the service mark was applicable and enforceable in the Irish jurisdiction.
I would hate to think this firestorm was caused by some lawyer sending a C&D that had no reasonable basis in Law in the jurisdiction of the recipient
In the spirit of Tim's call for people to do their research, can O'Reilly tell is the service mark valid in Ireland , can we have the facts.
I've always been an O'Reilly fan, have followed this issue, and waited for your return to hopefully clear it all up. I'm disappointed. The Web 2.0 Conference is (or was) worth millions and might (even-now) continue as such without an overly-broad reach to protect your buzz-mark.
Convince CMP to withdraw any claim other than your actual conference title "Web 2.0 Conference." Any other claim is very weak and clearly offensive to many.
O'Reilly has acknowledged making an uncharacteristic mistake; please try to show a little contrition. This is best done by avoiding 1.0 apologies, which only require you to state that you're sorry. Often, as we have seen here, this can fail miserably. Apology 2.0 is much more advanced and efficient, while providing enormous increases in apology acceptance. Apology 2.0 apologies are in the form of: I'm sorry. Note the period. A 2.0 apology is not followed by a demand for a like apology, and never takes the form (as Sara's did) of "were sorry, even though we have no need to be for the following reasons"
Please step away from the buzz-mark.
The following won't have caused your problem:
Web 2.0 (TM)
If you/CMP had indicated a TM sign next to Web 2.0, the community would have known that it was your/CMP's pending trademark. You didn't, and the community whole heartedly adopted it.
"I have read the posts thoroughly and also have experience with trademarks. The issue is NOT that you/CMP sent a cease and desist or in other words, were trying to protect your trademark.
The problem is that you/CMP never indicated that for the past 3 years, Web 2.0 was your pending trademark. Infact, you encouraged common usage of the term with your articles. And it is only now that you/CMP have got the trademark registration (it took 3 years, but now you finally have it !), and that is why you are letting the legal dogs loose. Your post does not resolve the issue that you/CMP acted/are acting in bad faith and cheated an entire geek community.
Trust me Tim, geeks are the most intelligent people around, and even a geek mob DOES read the article before commenting. The geeks are right, and you are wrong. Just analyze the situation more carefully and drop the Web 2.0 trademark for your conference."
That was amazing, Tim. Thanks for the thorough response.
From the sounds of some of the comments here, some people are apologizing for some of the things they said out of ignorance, but some people still think you should drop your trademark even though it only applies for conferences. It'll be interesting to see how this one ends.
Re: "You want IT@cork to apologize for a posting a Cease and Desist Letter that your staff Oked?"
Yep. He does. Tim O'Reilly thinks that Tom Raftery's posting the letter and asking for advice was offensive, and that "Tom owes us an apology."
This is going to be one for the marketing case studies...
It's very unfortunate that a useful, if nebulous term like Web 2.0 has now been made a joke of through the combined actions of both the legal "advisors" and zealot "advocates," neither of which seemed to grasp the pragmatism underlying the term in the first place.
I suppose there is some good though, the term Web 2.0 will now typify the continuous and momentous clash between grassroots idealism - "information wants to be free" - and corporate money making - "free to make us money."
And whether they give each other credit or not, both camps are equally driving the evolution of the web forward at a thrilling pace.
Let's hang on for the ride!
fuck you and your dumbass Web 2.0(sm)(tm)(c)(r)* bullshit and your shitty man-page-printout books.
*patent pending
Tim - your email account spam server is blocking my server. I've sent a response from yahoo.
Trademarks and to some extent legal issues such as copyright laws are too complex and convoluted for the average "web 2.0" joe blow to understand.
A "service trademark"? What the heck is that? Is it a US-only thing, or does that applying to my part of the world? What if O'Reilly takes my ideas that I (maybe perhaps naively) shared at his conference and patents/trademarks/copyrights them? How am i going to trust him after this debacle?
Tim, the only sensible thing now is for you to deal with the issues honestly. No cope outs like "let me talk to so and so, we'll figure out the best way to ...", that's lame. The community is (was?) looking up to for stewardship, and here you are playing with scary words like "service mark". Drop all this, issue a public apology and give money to charity. Maybe then you will redeem your conference.
bleargh, I'm afraid Dave Winer has already trademarked that term.
You'll be hearing from his lawyer, just like Rogers Cadenhead did.
(Not taking sides here, just pointing out that no one is clean in this game.)
Well (BLEARGH - 2 posts up) You help prove the case intelligent life is not as abundent on this planet as many originally suspected. Please, a little respect and manners. You might also consider asking the charm school counselor for a refund.
Conjecture:
O'Reilly find that Web 2.0 as a concept and moniker has taken on a life of its' own
O'Reilly understand the community in which they operate and which they serve
Perhaps CMP do not understand any of the above and they register a service mark for Web 2.0, with a view towards protecting it as a commercial "asset" in a narrow field namely conferences/events
However the Web 2.0 Genie has left the bottle, and the tech community do not see it as any kind of commercial "asset", it is now a generic widespread term, akin to Internet,Web or Blogosphere, it describes an ecosystem, a business approach, a technology, even a community of sorts - how people think, can they now want to corral it and tell people who can and can't use it, esp when they use the blunt tool of legal correspondance
Should or in fact did O'Reilly counsel caution when CMP said they were going to start issuing C&D's to people using Web 2.0 in conference or events or are we looking at a disconnect, so that CMP acted and O'Reilly staff just missed the importance of what was being done and through a simple matter of not thinking it through , set the scene for a firestorm
It does appear that someone at O'Reilly dropped the ball , perhaps even without realizing
Web 2.0 = Generic = No Patent, period.
Let them try to enforce it and get even more egg on their face. I didn't even know about their conferences until this flap came up.
If Tim has an ounce of credibility left, he'd use every bit of his influence to kill this patent crap. 'nuff said.
And the irony of all this is that Tim O'Reilly was so well respected for the whole Web 2.0 (TM) thing. He was one of the noble men in the Web 2.0 (TM) community, with a big and shiny halo around him. The term Web 2.0 (TM) was inextricably linked to "Tim O'Reilly". And all that got blown away. But don't blame Tom or the bloggers or the commenters for it. It was Self-Destruction 101 at display.
"The Average Web 2.0 Joe Blow" might not understand the intricacies of IP law, but he/she surely would know a trademark when he sees a TM or R sign next to a name. That's more like, you can look, but you cannot touch.
The situation hasn't been resolved. CMP Media still owns the trademark to the term "Web 2.0" in the US, even if it's just for conferences.
Tim,
With all due respect, are you kidding!!
A million-dollar corporation, one of the lead thinkers of the contemporary IT world, an expert blogger, a professional...
1. ...thinks that having a trademark on "Web 2.0" is justifiable and defendable, even if the now-projected intended use was limited to conferences!
2. ...agreed with CMP about potential dilution of the brand, and that something should be done about it!!!
3. ...says that he didn't know that CMP will send out C&D letters, even though he agreed with CMP about the potential dilution, and that something must be done about it!!
4. ...wants to make us believe that O'Reilly and CMP don't wish to claim the right to all use of the term "Web 2.0", but still wish to hold on to the trademark and are worried about potential dilution and that something must be done about it!!!
5. ...refers to the now-classic "LinuxWorld" analogy.
6. ...wants to deny any prior usage of the term for the same intention!!!
Please rethink.
It's irrelevant whether IT@Cork should have responded to you privately before going public.
Shouldn't your partner CMP consult with you, the biggest proponent of the term "Web 2.0", before going out after IT@Cork?
Shouldn't you first consult with the web community, who stood behind you and lined up to read everything you had to say, before agreeing with the trademark and that something must be done to prevent the potential dilution...
Tim, you had it - the grip, the leadership, the opportunity. But you let it go. And once gone, it ain't gonna come back that easily.
How dare we think that you would have thought that way, Tim. I, for one, am sorry for jumping to any conclusions about your character. This seems to be blown out of proportion, sensationalized fodder for the blogosphere. Now, it almost appears that Tom Raftery was using this as a publicity stunt for his event. If that was the goal Tom, mission accomplished. Now, the backlash should be back at IT@Cork. Now they really have used the Web 2.0 to promote their conference in a very Web 2.0 way. Ironic.
I used to bristle when members of the mainstream press wagged their fingers at the unprofessionalism of bloggers. I looked around at all the bloggers who are, to my mind, practicing great journalism, and wrote off the MSM criticism as fear of the new medium. But now I'm not so sure. The flap about the Web 2.0 Conference trademark has shaken my faith in the collective intelligence of the blogosphere.
Oh now you run for cover under the NYT and spew this blog-hating garbage because you got dinged so hard? These words will follow you forever. You are a gutless self-serving prick. Way to talk shit about everyone with one sweeping generalization over a major fuck-up your company made. FUCK YOU for displaying that kind of arrogance. Any knocks you take now are fully deserved.
Free advice: fire Sara Winge, she's useless.
I think the issue here is and was not the trademark par sec, rather it is the sloppish manner that the PR folks did and secondly the issue itself...
They say :"Web 2.0," which the law says we must take "reasonable steps" to protect. "
I say : "Please quote Article and Section and previous docket# wherein which the law is enforced"
That is, where in the history of law has a trademark holder been sued for not taking action to protect his own trademark ?? so what your PR staff said is a lot of ..whatever !!
The point that I am trying to make is simple, that "Web2.0 conference" is and shall always be yours to share, however that is not the stance that you or our assoicates have taken. The C&D speaks for itself. So literally, I am failing to see how you can be called as leading open source advocate under these prevailing issues and current sceanrio. Exactly what prompted you to and your team to send out a C&D letter ?? IMHO, its simple - you dont want anyone using the coined term "WEb2.0 Conference" to make money - yet to advocate open source concepts..correct ??
Is this not a forked tongue method in play ?? What am I missing here ??
weber, part of the problem is that it takes even less work to do basic research on the differences between patents, copyright, and trademarks than it does to post angry messages... yet so many comments even on this story demonstrate astonishing ignorance of the purpose of trade and service marks.
The confusion between receiving a cease and desist letter -- unpleasant and, I believe, unnecessary in this case but still nothing more than a love note from a laywer -- and receiving notice of a lawsuit is also very evident.
It's very difficult to take certain opinions seriously when they are so clearly ill-informed.
The CMP/O'Reilly's version of Web 2.0 Conference will always be unique in its own way. No matter how others around the world try to put up one. For a conference participant or media attendee, that distinction (brand loyalty for that matter) is clear and can choose which one to attend.
Fear not. The collective intelligence of the blogosphere is growing and at an astounding rate. You only have to learn to discern the signal from the noise.
If you read the comments on the other two O'Reilly blogs, the essence of it was dissatisfaction of your customers in the manner in which you (O'Reilly) handled the situation.
And now you are only making matters worse with a half-assed apology, criticism of your customer base and wanting an apology in return from the little guy. I sincerely hope that you guys can this whole Web 2.0 TM/SM thing.
I have a line for you: The Customer is Always Right.
or if you like Donald Trump: Don't believe your critics unless they love you.
Looks like you guys have taken the latter approach.
To all the flameboys:
I don't see you with a publishing and conference empire so stfu until you have accomplished something! Go back to your tolling on digg!
Something to consider.
Section 24 of Irish Trade Marks Act
4.(1) Where a person threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark other than in relation to
( a ) the application of the mark to goods,
( b ) the importation of goods to which the mark has been applied, or
( c ) the supply of services under the mark,
any person aggrieved may apply to the Court for relief under this section.
(2) The relief which may be applied for as mentioned in subsection (1) is any of the following:
( a ) a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable;
( b ) an injunction against the continuance of the threats;
( c ) damages in respect of any loss sustained by the threats.
(3) A plaintiff shall be entitled to such relief as is referred to in subsection (2) unless the defendant shows that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened constitute (or if done would constitute) an infringement of the registered trade mark concerned.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), the plaintiff shall be entitled to such relief as is referred to in subsection (2) if the plaintiff shows that the registration of the trade mark is invalid or liable to be revoked in a relevant respect.
(5) Notification that a trade mark is registered or that an application for registration has been made shall not of itself constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section.
To all the readers
Do you want someone else to own "Web 2.0" ?
If they do not someone else will
To own it you must REACT to infringement. Moreover using different methods for different organizations can have bad legal consequences. I am certain that there will be many who will try to exploit "Web 2.0" in "interesting" ways. I would hope we would not want O'Reilly to be vulnerable to dastardly persons. Yes, there are times business is a cartoon.
This has generated great publicity for the conference, which should be good as it has an O'Reilly speaker and it will be on Web 2.0 otherwise O'Reilly would have not permitted them to continue to use the mark. That is why trademarks are generally valuable to society at large.
To Tim and O'Reilly
Thanks for your responses.
Could you put up a page (or a pointer to a page) which lists your various marks and what they mean.
Perhaps it could have a form to apply for use of the mark.
To Thomas Hawk
Thank you for your effective and considered apology. It will help to make the Blogsphere a better place. Well maybe.
To Sara Winge.
Hang in there you did fine.
Also if people wish they may oppose the granting of the trade/service mark, as I believe it is still within the 3 month timeframe that oppositions can be lodged
The UK patent office application number is E4972212
I've been a huge ORA customer over the years (which is easy for any geek who buys as many books as I do). But I was unimpressed by how CMP handled this mess. It's not nice to wait until a term receives widespread generic usage--without (TM) signs--and then send C&D letters to non-profits. And I'm not surprised that this blew up; it seems that most geeks freak out when receiving a C&D, and many send it straight to Slashdot. Haven't lawyers noticed this by now? Exactly what do they expect?
If W** 2.0(tm) is a proprietary term, it should have been explicitly promoted as such. I'll need to cut it from my presentations, because I'm not in the business of promoting a proprietary CMP brand name. I think that's where the greatest sense of betrayal comes from: I've been helping a company I know nothing about.
And if continuing to disapprove of ORA's and CMP's actions in this matter makes me a member of the "mob", well, so be it.
I'm sorry Jb I could not resist this one.
Cork is in Eire which is not part of the U.K..
If you really want to avoid a storm I would suggest you correct this, otherwise at the least you are going to be the receiving end of "interesting" responses from the supporters of the Emerald republic.
I'm sure they will be fun to read for everyone but you.
Incidently a C&D is not an action, my guess it is considered a reasonable response in legal terms, but you did find relevant material.
What a mess. You're turning your brand into garbage and, while this post will satisfy some, so many people who picked up the Web 2.0 ball and ran with it will never look to you for inspiration again.
To come up with a term like that, have it become a part of the daily language and be widely acknowledged for creating it is so much more valuable than being the only one able to use it in the U.S. in a conference title, especially a conference that is so well known.
It's sad to see a great brand lose track, especially due to a partner's mistakes. By the way, I think registering Software Development was also a bad move on CMP's part, but now I know to start keeping an eye on their moves.
For them to send a C&D to another country without having attempted any kind of international IP registration shows that they are willing to pull foolish jack moves that will embarass them and you in the future.
Best of luck with your conference!
Stephen , I'm not falling into the Ireland in the UK trap let me explain
I believe that OReilly CMP made their trademark applcation (for Europe)in the UK ,through a UK Patent agent - so it is lodged in the UK and has European applicability through treaty and agreements.
So the UK is the place to object.
Tim: It matters not whether Tom missed parts of other emails or whether he contacted you - for goodness sake - your own people couldn't reach you for a response last week - or so it seems. He was dealing with lawyers by that stage - what do you expect?
The admitted fact the left and right hands may not have been so well coordinated should surely be enough to inform you the organisation as a whole is not well connected.
Isn't that the issue?
And to the wider 'flat world' point - Eire is not the 51st State of the US and treating it as such in the absence of enforcable law is guaranteed to piss people off outside the 50 States. When will US media get that?
These are not trivial issues but ones that need addressing. Like it or not in a flat world. That could of course be an issue of global legislation - but since we can't agree on the same word usage, we have to find other ways to negotiate these issues. Sledge hammers certainly don't do it in th eyes of 'us' in the EU.
While the geeks are innovating on technology, the suits are innovating at jargon and terminology. This is alright as long as the suits leave the geeks alone and stay out of their way. All hell breaks loose when the suits get in the way!
I call this letter Bullshit 2.0. Tim, if you wanted to say sorry, you would have said so. But you didn't, which means you aren't sorry.
In such a long post, it's rather surprising you've failed to substantatively address the concerns the web development community has brought forth.
http://ceejayoz.com/2006/05/31/web-20-and-trademarks/
Stop blaming the victim.
Tim this was a nicely reasoned, rational reply to the brushfire of angry commentary.
However I'm guessing this has not addresed