Controversy about our "Web 2.0" service mark
Sara Winge, our VP of Corporate Communications, asked me to post this:
The blogosphere has been buzzing today about O'Reilly sending a cease-and-desist letter to IT@Cork, demanding (yes, that's the legal term) that they not use "Web 2.0" in the title of their conference. I'd like to give the O'Reilly perspective, and clear up a few things. You'd be hearing from Tim, but he's off the grid, on a (rare) vacation.
O'Reilly and CMP co-produce the Web 2.0 conference. "Web 2.0" was coined when we were brainstorming the concept for the first conference in 2003. As noted in the letter to IT@Cork (sent from CMP's attorney, but with our knowledge and agreement), "CMP has a pending application for registration of Web 2.0 as a service mark, for arranging and conducting live events, namely trade shows, expositions, business conferences and educational conferences in various fields of computers and information technology." To protect the brand we've established with our two Web 2.0 Conferences, we're taking steps to register "Web 2.0" as our service mark, for conferences. It's a pretty standard business practice. Just as O'Reilly couldn't decide to launch a LinuxWorld conference, other event producers can't use "Web 2.0 Conference," the name of our event. In this case, the problem is that it@cork's conference title includes our service mark "Web 2.0," which the law says we must take "reasonable steps" to protect. We've also contacted another group that has announced a "Web 2.0 Conference" in Washington, DC this September.
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.
[Added 26 May 2006] A further update is here.
[Added 27 May 2006 by Marc:] I deleted a comment that insinuated Tim is a child molester.
[Added 1 June 2006 by Brady:] You can see Tim's response to the controversy in this post.
tags: web 2.0
| comments: 282
| Sphere It
submit: 
0 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4694
Comments: 282
So does this effectively mean that no one else can hold a conference about Web 2.0 except for O'Reilly/CMP? How about if I use "Web Twodotzero" would that still receive a cease and desist?
Surely it would have been better to trademark a specific usage of the term rather than the all embracing "Web 2.0"? This is where your example of 'LinuxWorld' does not hold up. 'LinuxWorld' is a specific phrase that is associated with a conference. Without the conference link it doesn't make sense, while if you refer to 'LinuxWorld' people know that it means the actual conference. 'Web 2.0' on the other hand is used constantly as the easy to use entry point when discussing a wide variety of concepts.
If you had used a more specific name for a conference such as 'Web2.0World' then there would be no issue, as it is you seem to be trying to preventing to the use of 'Web 2.0' in any conference ever?
Now this is how you go about rubbing people up the wrong way.
If anyone is claiming "Web 2.0" as their intellectual property.. then it's time to find a different name and for everyone except O'Reilly to start using that instead.
One where people aren't going to get anal over it being freely used by those who develop in that particular style.
If "Web 2.0" was to be a trademark (I assume this isn't a registered trademark yet as you have referred to it as a Service Mark), then the larger dev. community should cease using the phrase at all and stop giving your "service mark" exposure.
I am also under the impression that you may have some difficulty with registering "Web 2.0" as a trademark. Maybe not in the states, but in other countries - you'll probably have a hard time enforcing anything over the use of "Web 2.0".
There's a notable difference between a mark such as 'Web 2.0 World' and 'Web 2.0 <event>' where <event> can be any generic term, e.g. conference, workshop, etc. It's highly questionable whether you should have been granted that mark in the first place, and whether you have defended it sufficiently during the time it was pending.
In any case, O'Reilly has given itself a shiner of a black eye, and will continue to be beaten by most web commentators, despite the years and care that have gone into Tim's reputation as a champion of enlightened business practice. These commentators will likely advocate a boycott of your upcoming conference.
I and a very few other bloggers had jumped to the conclusion that this must be CMP's blunder; surely Tim O'Reilly was too savvy to make such a mistake. You have proven us fools, and that we will not forget.
I think the problem is two-fold:
1. Trying to service mark "Web 2.0" for conference use isn't really in the spirit of Web 2.0 at all.
2. Sending a cease and desist letter before asking nicely, even if you were justified, is certainly one way to earn the contempt of the blogosphere. People don't take well to heavy handed corporations throwing their legal team on a not-for-profit.
I think Scott is dead-on in his example of LinuxWorld vs. Web 2.0 World.
Attempting to service mark a generic name is simply evil. It's no better than cybersquatting.
And don't act like your doing THEM a favor by *letting* them use the term Web 2.0.
It doesn't make a lot of horse-sense to define Web 2.0 in terms of shared resources, open-source and collective development, yet take the same term and monopolize the usage.
While conferencing is probably the only usage worth trademarking, the backlash is coming from the apparent inconsistency.
The problem may not be in the usage of "Web 2.0 Conference," rather, that some poor soul might want to use a confusingly similar phrase. The company makes a lot of hay out of conferences (name recognition/influence, registration fees, book sales, etc.), so what happens when someone wants to use:
--"NY Explores Web 2.0 Conference"
--"The We Love Web 2 Conference"
--"Conference: The Web 2.0 Experience"
--"Confer about Web 2.0"
--"Web 2.0--Conference or Interference?"
--"Web 2.1234 Conference"
even down to
--"Law 2.0 Conference"
--"Medecine 2.0 Conference"
--"Plumbing 2.0 Conference"
Web 2.0 alone is surely not subject to exclusive use, so at the end of the day, how valuable is it really going to be in terms of conference marketing? Is it purely a source of licensing revenue?
I also wonder if Web 2.0 has not, by its very nature, already gone the way of kleenex, xerox or walmartsucks.com. Why not just walk away? Or better yet, skirt the issue and donate it to the public domain.
Not the sort of response we were all waiting for - I was hoping to hear that it was a mistake but it seems that O'Reilly will be going after anybody who tries to setup any conference around 'Web 2.0' (well, using that exact phrase).
LinuxWorld is the name of a complete brand, very different - the analogy there would be if somebody tried to setup an O'Reilly conference - certainly not the case here.
Just like we should be able to setup a Linux, Apache, Open Source conference we should be able to setup a Web 2.0 conference - it's not your brand (you didn't build it - the community did)
All very ironic
Ms. Winge says: "Just as O'Reilly couldn't decide to launch a 'LinuxWorld' conference, other event producers can't use 'Web 2.0 Conference', the name of our event." This is a bad example. "Linux" is a technology. "LinuxWorld" is a conference. You are asserting that no one else can use "Linux" in the name of a conference without infringing on "LinuxWorld." This is prima facie nonsense. Beyond this, you'll have a hard time upholding your claim against prior art and incur the enmity of the entire community you claim to represent. Lookup "Pyrrhic victory" in your Funk & Wagnalls.
It is completely anti web 2.0 attitude to protect web 2.0. I hope that all this legal mess will end very soon, because it is childish disputes.
Let's pull that bug out of O'Reilly's ass, and start calling it Web 2.1 - the bug fix release ;-)
Seriously, people... take some valium to loosen your uptight puckerholes and chill the hell out. They're apologizing for their heavy-handed approach, and you're still working on that www.oreilly-sucks-because-he-has-a-corporation.com site. They're even LETTING THEM USE THE NAME THIS YEAR. What more do you fairweather fans want?
Even THE BEST companies have to defend their service marks, or they LOSE THEIR RIGHTS FOREVER. Our court system DEMANDS that O'Reilly act whenever someone's actions could potentially lead to confusion in the marketplace. And you're all fucking idiots if you think that someone else calling their conference "Web 2.0 Conference" can't possibly confuse anyone.
You all might live in hippie communes where everything is community-owned, but some of us live out here in the real world where people own land, toaster ovens, and yes, even concepts and words. That's called a BRAND, and if you've heard of strange terms like "IBM" or "Hallmark", you might see how silly little names can be valuable and worth defending.
This is typical O'Reilly, really. Greed. Makes him a hypocrite too... Shame on you Tim.
This whole farce has demonstrated very clearly that the Web2.0(sm) phenomenon, far from being a real movement with any business value to the community at large, is being operated exclusively for the benefit of its creators and would-be owners.
Brady, Sara
I'm glad you've cleared this up relatively quickly - and to some extent, I understand the reasoning. That said...
You might want to make it very very clear - as it seems some people are still a bit confused - that you've not trademarked the term 'Web 2.0' in general, but are claiming ownership of it only in relation to conferences.
And, echoing most other people (and I know repeating it isn't really constructive, but the emphasis is important): The action taken does not match who O'Reilly are, to the public. It could be said that O'Reilly is even a Web 2.0 company, in the sense of how it acts mirrors the best of the Web 2.0 ideals. Mind you, it's a lot harder to say such a thing now.
It seems like all that's happened is some people haven't spoken to other people - and these problems aren't anything new (they happen to the best of us), it's just a pity they blew up so publicly.
Face it guys. You've just killed Web 2.0(sm?) - even if it's just for conferences. Now maybe people will use meaningful phrases to describe the realities of the Internet.
Getting a service mark for a name of a loose collection of "standards" thrown together in a futile attempt to make HTML into an application programming language is just sad, doubly so when it comes from a reputable firm such as yours.
I hereby claim exclusive rights to any term of the form "Web <n>", where <n> is any number, real or imaginary, except 2.0. :-)
What is Web 2.0?
- Get other people ideas
- Market said ideas under a nice package
- Unleash lawyers
What is Web 2.0?
- Get other people ideas
- Market said ideas under a nice package
- Unleash lawyers
- Profit??
Kevin and Pat, pull your heads out of your *&&es. O'Reilly chose to register a mark that is generic, descriptive and in wide public use ("Web"? "2.0"? Please, spare me - gee, I wonder whether that might ever be in wide public use by, oh I don't know - everyone), and they are trying to monopolize its use in association with educational events about a phenomenon that is specifically about collaboration, sharing and open access. This is sickeningly unironic. O'Reilly has just declared itself to be no more about Web 2.0 than the record labels are about sharing. And at the end of the day, the only supporters left will be O'Reilly's hardest-core base - the Kevin and Pats who will defend them, no matter what.
What's worse, O'Reilly tries to portray itself as a victim to avoid the responsibility it bears for its choices - they are no more forced to protect this mark than they were forced to file for its use in the first place. This "we are required by law to defend it" crap is the worst kind of "oh lordy I'm such a victim" deflection of their personal responsibility for trying to monopolize the term in the first place.
So - O'Reilly has just demonstrated that:
- it doesn't understand Web 2.0;
- it's not interested in the community (just when did you lose your soul?)
- it's cowardly and evil.
Nice job, lads.
I don't see anywhere in here that says "not for profit:"
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
maybe our little bubble can burst now?
> It's a pretty standard business practice
Seems very 1.0 to me. I can't believe you guys are doing this to your reputation... how long until you realize what's happening?
The problem is that you are claiming a service mark on the use of Web 2.0 for conferences about a particular technology, when you do not have a service mark on the use of Web 2.0 to describe the technology.
You should either have registered Web 2.0 for all uses related to the technology and defended it for all uses related to the technology, or you should not claim any ownership.
"Disappointed (Former) Fan", excuse me if I don't go for the jugular. I'm not going to crucify O'Reilly for making a mistake. If this becomes one in a series of bad moves, then I'll certainly be less forgiving, but I think some patience and understanding is allowed at this point in time.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear (although I thought it was implied in the third paragraph of my previous comment), but I definitely do not like the way the action has been taken, and I'm not really a fan of the reasons given.
I'm not going to go off and burn any O'Reilly book I can lay my hands on, though.
Sesame Street are also suing to stop use of "the number two" and "the letter O"...
...who owns "point"?
This is a vastly unsatisfying response. You should have waited for Tim to blackberry in from vaca.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_2.0
what exactly does he mean 'going to register'? Its already registered. It was registered in 2003. The entire 'Web 2.0' thing is an incredibly poor attempt at creating a multi-level marketing scheme for web technologies. If Orielly is implying that he didnt know this... that is a very deceptive tactic in my view.
Bhhaaammmm!
Here you go! That was the end of this none-sensical bubble.
Please let's carry on now and work on something that has real value and not some kind of leach service mark that tries to encompass too many unrelated technologies/concepts just for one company's profit.
Hey! Someone is selling "Web Sue.0" t-shirts just outside my office building. I think I'm going to buy one...
This is pathetic. I want to know what Tim really thinks on the matter, I have a feeling he will agree too.
If not you have lost another customer.
bad move tim, what were you thinking?
web2.0 proprietory culture?
anyway, enjoy the karma from this one...
Up until you guy's went 'legal' you probably would would have made better milage out of a conference named "O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Conference", since there was a lot of mana attached to the "O'Reilly" name.
And nobody would have disputed the validity of trade marking this (or similar term).
Now, of course, you are going to look rather MicroSoftish no matter what you do. Time for a new VP of Corporate Communications perhaps?
Remember, we may only be the little guy's but we are also the ones who buy the books and come to the conferences.
PS - I am thinking of trade marking "O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Conference". Oh Really - yes really.
I'd simply like to say that you're a bunch of nutcases if you think that registering 'Web 2.0' as a service mark is going to improve your business kudos.
Again, the trademark was registered in 2003. This whole thing is trying to cover up the fact that Web 2.0 is a poorly constructed infomercial that Dale Dougherty, Tim O'Reilly, and all of CMP Media LLC. were in on. Guess what Tim? you just lost all youre credibility with the OSS community for pulling a classic Microsoft-like move. Good folks dont appreciate being swindled.
Has anyone noticed the creative commons badge in the side column of this blog post?
Oh the irony!
WHO CARES!?!
Web 2.0 is over! It is done. The time is now for Web 3.0 (as he calls his lawyer to register a service mark) sigh!
You have really shot youself in the foot this time. You couldn't have done a worse PR job if you tried. As a company who work hard to support "open" projects and so on your "legal" department and "PR" team have created so much bad feeling within the community that I suggest you fire them (well, at least remove the numbskull who let this debacle happen). Heads must role for this balls up. Is it telling that O'Reilly himself in on his hols? Will he like what greets him when he gets back to his desk after the vacation? I doubt it.
Sarah/Brady,
As someone in the comments above mentioned, you *may* want to clarify *exactly* what you are trying to trade mark.
If you are trying to trade mark Web 2.0 then that is wrong. Period.
Lets take it to an extreme here. The actual name of the conference is "Web 2.0 Half Day Conference".
So does that mean they are infringing on your marks?
What if it was called Bernard's Web 2.0 is crap 2 week long conference". Would that also infringe?
*IF however* you are trying to trade mark "O' Reilly Web 2.0" conference (or "O' Reilly Web 2.0 conference") then I don't think there is a problem here.
What you are doing, if you know it or not, is going against an ideal of what web 2.0 is.
Also, I don't think its fair to dump on Tim, when his view has not yet been released.
I think it would be really smart for him, and for O' Reilly Press to release a *personal* view.
Otherwise, from the general feeling of the comments here, and in the last post, O' Reilly Press may loose some customers.
Web 2.0 is (almost dead). Long live Web n.n.
Just my views on it.
thanks
bernard
runningwithbulls.com/blog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_2.0
BTW- in case anyone doest have time to sort through the wikipedia discussion, I had tried to add info regarding the service mark status of 'Web 2.0' 3+ times to Wikipedia. It was erased every time by various users( mainly ArtW ). Finally it was allowed to stay as a minor side comment. Anyone who thought Web 2.0 was an authentic community of developers has been essentially scammed by Tim O'Reilly and friends. You may have built your professional house on CMP Media's land without knowing it. That was their plan. This begs the legal question, does a trade/service mark owner have the obligation to inform people of the status of terms that they use? What happened to the (r) or (tm) sign?
oh btw- all these things happened on wikipedia weeks ago. And I posted this data on google groups months ago.
a record of my Wikipedia Edit comments:
21:05, 10 May 2006 Jjzeidner (CMP Media LLC.)
21:06, 10 May 2006 Jjzeidner (added USPTO)
03:53, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (CMP Media LLC. , re-adding highly pertinent information regarding legal status of service mark 'Web 2.0')
04:02, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (turned CMP Media LLC. into a link)
04:06, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (CMP Media LLC. fixed link problem)
07:31, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (CMP Media owns Web 2.0 Service Mark( serial: 78322306 ) . The reference is NOW SOURCED. You will not suppress this information. Lets not have another WALMART WAR.)
08:13, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (USPTO link to CMP Media LLC. Service Mark 78322306 expires, added data to page)
18:04, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (CMP Media LLC. : Web 2.0 is USPTO service Mark s.no: 78322306 ... THIS IS HIGHLY RELEVANT INFORMATION DO NOT DELETE IT... you may own the service mark but you do not own this page.)
19:33, 11 May 2006 Jjzeidner (the business is: a multinational corporation called CMP Media LLC. OWNS 'Web 2.0' if you don't think that is relevant I question your motives.)
...etc.
O'Reilly is not the 'peoples software company'. They are a sleazy manipulative corporation just like Microsoft. Tim, did you sell your soul?
Sara,
1) Saying something is a "standard business practice" does not excuse your actions or lessen my dissappointment in your company. I can find "standard" anywhere --- you should be aiming for better.
2) The law requires you to take reasonable action to protect your service mark. Ok, great. Sounds like you have that well in hand. The goodwill of your customers is a great deal more important than a service mark. It troubles me that O'Reilly seems to need help understanding this point.
3) What aggravates me the most about these heavy-handed tactics is that they imply a fairly low regard for the intelligence of your customer base. Why is this "Web 2.0" brand is so important to you? Do you think that the people driving the development of this new technology are glassy-eyed zombies who walk around mouthing "AJAX... Web 2.0... AJAX". People will judge the value of your books and conferences mostly on their technical merit, not on a silly service brand. The reputation of your company will be determined by whether or not you conduct yourselves in a manner that indicates that you understand and respect the values of the community you purchases your products.
3) You last point sort of sounds like an apology. Or maybe you just mean that you wished you could have been a little quieter when you squeezed these guy's nuts.
I've got a bookshelf full of O'Reilly books. I've learned a lot from them, and I've paid a lot for them. Strictly business I guess. Sigh.
As someone who has been professionally piled up on I'm wading in in defense of your friend and mine Tim.
First, not having made a polite phone call first is obviously a big fuck up. It happens. Tim is a bridge builder - he does NOT go looking to pick fights.
Second, we all know how lawyer's act. Big and important. They should have been on a leash. See my first point.
Third, we haven't heard from Tim yet so please stop burning him at the stake.
Tim just isn't like this. Everyone please take a breather until we hear from him.
O'Reilly, you suck! It's a pity that you publish such well-written technical books, because I won't be buying any more of them. Fortunately, there are many equally good alternatives available, so I'll be fine. (The "Core" books from Prentice Hall are every bit as good as O'Reilly books.)
Seeing that Tim is probably in the castle he owns in Killarney, Ireland, which is not far from Cork, where Tom Raftery lives, a trip across the county border might be the best way to sort this out. Tim could also bring a present to celebrate the arrival of Enrique Raftery Carnicero, born on Tuesday morning. And to think that Tom had invited Tim to address the conference in Cork! Rich!
And to think that Tim's lawyers would harass someone who's doing his best to make a living in the land that the O'Reilly's had to flee because of colonial-induced poverty is too rich! This has all the elements of comedy and tragedy. I see a flood of articles, blog postings, TV reports featuring Tim vs. Tom advancing.
Good post Brady. A PR black eye, to be sure, but rational minds will understand that the service mark you applied for was scoped appropriately and O'Reilly has legitimately created value worthy of protection in the conference context.
On the bright side, if the term Web 2.0 gets overused you can always version it.
For the people who say "chill out", how would you feel if the same situation were to happen with service marking "CSS", so only one company could have a CSS Conferece? Sounds silly doesn't it? Same goes for Web 2.0 now that it's a common term.
Aside from that I will say that we do need to keep in mind Tim O. != O'Reilly BigCo. Companies, and their legal teams, have a certain inertia that can't be controlled by one person, even the namesake. Tim himself has done a lot for the community and I'm sure he's not out picking victims for the next C&D of the day.
Now, obviously, IANAL, so I don't know how valid this suggestion is, but it seems to me that one way to make everyone mostly happy, would be to grant all of these conferences license to use the "Web 2.0" phrase in their names if they agree to note on all registration materials (including the registration websites) that the conference in question, is, in fact, not the O'Reilly Web 2.0 Conference. Seems to me that that should deal with the issue of defending the Service Mark, plus the conferences get to keep their name, and O'Reilly gets to keep its reputation, and everyone can chalk the whole fiasco up to an overzealous legal department who has the significant advantage of being generally faceless.
But then again, IANAL, and I have no idea whether that's a valid option or not.
Lets see this fiasco is now
Alienating you customers
Appearing Hypocritical
Acting like just another bunch of greedy litigious jerks
Throw away all the good will you have built up in the tech community, squander it.
Damage your own image, have a PR black eye and all for what
claiming ownership of a silly limited life span phrase
Way to go !
Oh I was going conducting a web2.0 conference in my basement. Beers and snacks were going to be free.. Now should I BOGU and charge my buddies because , I 'll be getting a C&D letter ??
Yeah, just kidd'en. ANyhoot to some more serious business...
They say : "Web 2.0 was coined when we were brainstorming the concept for the first conference"
I say : "Capitalize Vulture's coin stuff under the open source paradigm"
They say :"Web 2.0" as our service mark, for conferences. It's a pretty standard business practice"
I Say : "Tell that too a Joe Blow who wants to run an ajax /Ruby on Rails web2.0 Conference"
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 as enforced"
They say :"sent from CMP's attorney, but with our knowledge and agreement"
I say : "Agreed ?? Which planet are you on ?? "
They Say L"In retrospect, we wish we'd contacted the IT@Cork folks personally and talked over the issue before sending legal correspondence"
I say: "In retrospect, please contact CMP and inform them to withdraw the letter"
We are in the Attention, Intention and Reputation Economy
Attention : Granted, you got you 15 minutes of Fame
Intention : Oh, it's openly come out- you just want to squeeze the balls of just anyone to make money.
Reputation: What reputation ?? you have none now !!
i demand (DEMAND!!) that you immediately cease using the term Web 2.0. i claim prior art. case in point: i used the term Web x for x in a certain set of real numbers (a trade secret) and therefore you are in BLATANT violation of _MY_ "service mark". how you like them apples, baby? how's it feel to be a rolling stone?
my counsel, dewey cheatem and how PLC will be in touch with you. GOOD DAY, SIR.
You guys are losers. Shake your heads and go have a long weekend. Start up next week with a new idea please.
sorry guys, web 2.0 to Web 100.0 and all the dot releases in between have been registered by none other ;)
A win - win would be to have Tim ask someone to attend and contribute to it@cork Web 2dot0 half day Conference on 08 June.
You shouldv'e trademarked "Web 2.0 conference" not web 2.0 - you'll never get awarded a TM for that. At least I hope you don't. Yes, this will backfire even more so especially if you attempt to claim the name for anything that is not conference related.
An Open Letter to Tim O'Reilly
May 26, 2006
Borrowing the words you once wrote to Jeff Bezos, we now write to you in strikingly similar fashion to request that O'Reilly Media, Inc. cease all attempts to prevent others from using the term "Web 2.0" for any purpose including "arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology" and "organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology." It is our belief that this trademark application should and will not be accepted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and further, that even were it ultimately found valid, such trademarks serve only to hold back further innovation in this industry.
Web 2.0 is a clever marketing slogan. However, the trademark application fails to meet even the most rudimentary tests of genericity. Web 2.0 has clearly become generic, as evidenced by the more than 79 million search results found via Google for the term in question. It is clear that in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the term �Web 2.0� denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer as was claimed in the cease-and-desist letter sent to IT@Cork.
We believe that the rapid innovation on the World Wide Web and Internet platform that has created so much new value for the public (as well as for O'Reilly Media, Inc and its shareholders) will be choked off if companies that the short-sighted rout of claiming trademarks on terms that have become commonly accepted as generic in nature in an attempt to keep competitors from using them. Ill-advised trademarks and other attempts to limit the use of generic web terms for private advantage have put the whole software development and standards process into a precarious state.
We urgently request that you clarify your intentions with regard to trademarks, and avoid any attempts to limit the further development of what has become known as Web 2.0 applications or any part of the industries surrounding them.
Hans Omli
Note: While I don't intend to ask others to sign a petition at this point, I expect you will agree that 10,000 would be an easy milestone given the tremendous outcry across the blogsphere. Suffice it to say, I would expect much less than five days. We look forward to your open conversation with the community.
CMP/MediaLive and, indeed, O'Reilly seem confused. The USPTO database clearly shows an application for Web 2.0 being made in late November 2003 as a trademark for events. Yet, the following year, MediaLive was claiming that the longer, and arguably fairer, version was the claimed trade or service mark:
"MediaLive International, Web 2.0 Conference, … and associated design marks and logos are trademarks or service marks owned or used under license by MediaLive International, Inc., and may or may not be registered in the United States and other countries."
Even today, the service mark noted on the conference’s website is for Web 2.0 Conference (not just on the phrase ‘Web 2.0′). If you believe CMP owns an enforceable trademark or service mark on Web 2.0, why has CMP, MediaLive and O'Reilly persisted with the illusion that Web 2.0 Conference was in fact service-marked?
the real value of "web 2.0" for o'reilly is not a trademark by the cache associated with him being seen as one of the web 2.0 thought leaders. you would think someone with his foresight would realize this reality. if, at the end of the day, o'reilly gets the web 2.0 trademark and starts to enforce it, some of the goodwill he's built up over the past 2+ years will start to disappear. it may be a good business move but it's flawed strategic move.
Thanks for the info...I will make sure to avoid anything O'Reilly related in the future.
Oh no! You mean I can't use a meaningless, superficial marketing buzzword without OReilly's approval??? How awful!
Next you're going to tell me I can't talk "synergy" or "the blogosphere" -- what are we going to do?
Registering an application for a US trademark or service mark is a US application not an Irish or an EU application. Until there is a valid Irish or EU service/trademark, IT@Cork would be well within their rights to tell you and CMP to go procreate with yourselves.
But it is the sheer hypocrisy of the issue that irritates many of us here in Ireland. For all the guff about One Click Patents, here is something even more dubious and reprehensible - trying to claim intellectual property in what is now a common term.
Once, the O'Reilly marque stood for something. It identified with the free and inventive spirit of Open Source. Not any longer.
You must recognise that "Web 2.0" is a nickname that you gave to something and not a brand you created. Although I accept you potentially have a claim to the name few will believe you have a moral claim over it.
I would urge you to consider what your actions will do to your image and trustworthiness among the Internet community, and what impact this will have on your sales and the willingness of other authors to work with you.
By the way I am laying claim to the name of Web 4.0. In my mind it is kind of like Web 2.0 excluding anything that could get me sued. Please not that I have skipped Web 3.0 to avoid confusion with Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Layer III. :-)
Take one bullet, apply to brain. Seriously though, I note Tim says: "Sara Winge, our VP of Corporate Communications, asked me to post this" - are you not your own person?
[...] I can�t help thinking that O�Reilly are victims of their own success here. Like it or not, �Web 2.0″ has stuck pretty well as a term. Protecting their Web 2.0 conference while still hoping to keep it in popular use is going to be a difficult line to walk. [...]
Dude! Watch out! I have a pending patent on the word "Blogosphere"! But you seem like a nice guy, :) I'm going to let you go without a fine this time...
Fuck you O'Reilly for being such a scum. The real Web 2.0 community will bring you down.
This just made the front page of Slashdot. I predict a full-on O'Reilly surrender within 24 hours. (Not like the weasly crap in this post.)
Hey Tim! Your customers all hate your guts! What do you think of that?
Are you the same Yagiz who made the comments in
http://www.mulley.net/2006/05/25/schadenfreude-as-performed-by-a-company-in-cork/
You're not doing your company any favors with your responses
Much Ado about nothing... The trademark/service mark is the entire phrase. No one has restricted rights to use Web 2.0. So about 90% of what is being said here is an enourmous waste of time and energy, probably on time paid by someone else.
As is often the case in these threads, a lot of folks speak without knowing what it is they speak of and make a mountain out of a molehill to appease their own egos. We need a new filter to detect and eliminate this but then that probably wouldn't be web 2.0'ish.
This is truly amazing -- I am so disappointed with the O'Reilly folks over this embarrassingly petty and unneeded legal spat. In an age and day when increasing litigation threatens technological innovation and creativity, it's a shame that a reputable computer book company have descended to this level. Shame on you. I used to prefer purchasing O'Reilly books, my own way of supporting your business and ethics. However, from now on, I'll consider you no less ethical than anyone else. Congratulations, you've just lost a loyal fan.
Nathan
I'm completely biased on this question by my friendship with Tim and my former role at O'Reilly. But I wanted to say: I earned that bias by admiring the way Tim and the other O'Reilly employees -- including Sara -- work more than any other company I can think of. Tim tries harder -- too hard, sometimes -- to find the right thing to do in questions like these than you would imagine. Even still, sometimes everyone makes mistakes, and if Tim comes to conclude that this was one, I'm sure he'll say so. Likewise, if he listens to all of the above comments and more, and decides that this was still the right choice to have made, he'll say that, and argue for it strenuously, too. How many companies can you expect to see act that way, in any industry?
If you have reason to doubt that Tim will try to find the right path, argue for it, and then follow it in the way he acts, go read Search Engine Spam?, an earlier controversy on this blog. You'll see that Tim heard complaints from people on the net about an O'Reilly business relationship, that he thought long and hard about what to do about it, and then argued clearly and articulately for his decision. That decision cost O'Reilly a lot of money, but Tim stuck with it because he felt it was the right thing -- and got right on the phone with Google to tell them what he thought they should do about it, too.
I admire Tim more than just about anyone I've worked with or known, period. There are some legitimate complaints and points in the comments above and elsewhere, but I reject the personal aspersions on Tim. At least let him read what people have to say, and consider it and respond, before you start talking about book-burning. You may not agree with his conclusions, but you'll have every chance to see why he arrived at them.
-Marc Hedlund
We're well along planning our conference in
October, 2006, "Web 3.0" (tm). You just won't believe how stunningly cool Web 3.0 concepts
are!
I must have woken up in a parallel universe today. I can't believe this even happened. web2.0 is trademarked??? O'Reilly are you serious? Someone has been drinking too much hype-cool-aid.
By never using Web2.0 with the qualifying (tm) or (sm) gives this an air of deception.
O'Reilly has really promoted this terms generic use without revealing his Trademark.
Now it is a widely used generic term they are trying to monopolise conferences and education.
This is quite clear from the sequence of events and claiming Tim is a nice guy some lawyer did it.
To save face Tim will no doubt donate this term to the public domain, but the really sneaky way this was put over on the community will never be forgotten.
Bad call. Should have waited for Tim to get back before addressing this. Despite the current hoopla, a simple note that Tim would be back after Memorial Day to make a statement would have been better than a canned corporate response, no offense Sara. The C&D and this post just smacks of oppressive legal manuevering and very uncharacteristic of O'Reilly. If Adaptive Path makes a similar move on "AJAX", we need to move on to Web 3.0 - this is BS.
It is not possible to protect the trademarking of terms that have become common usage. A case could be made that Web 2.0 is one of those terms. The application for Web 2.0 has been made and is currently published for opposition by the USPTO. Anyone can file to oppose the granting of this trademark. So stop whining and file an opposition if it will make you feel better.
Would everybody be equally upset if I arranged a "Where 2.0 half-day Conference" and O'Reilly came down on me? I guess not.
Still the only difference is that the "Web 2.0" term has catched on. "Where 2.0" is made up of equally generic terms, but is not widely used in other contexts.
The comparison with LinuxWorld might have been better if you spelled out the copycat conference like this: "The Linux World Conference". Just generic words (save Linux) still close enough to the original as to create confusion. I wouldn't find it very surprising if LinuxWorld was upset about that. (But "The World Conference on Linux" would be alright in my opinion.)
O'Reilly obviously isn't trying to prevent others from arranging conferences on "Web 2.0", nor from using it to discuss the phenomena. They are simply trying to prevent others from branding their conferences to similar to their own.
Open Web
It's not Web 2 it's not Web 3 its Open Web and it's happening regardless of any name.
bye bye Web 2.. roll on Open Web oh yea, that term is not going to unleash a raft of lawyers on anyone either
Bad call. Should have waited for Tim to get back before addressing this. Despite the current hoopla, a simple note that Tim would be back after Memorial Day to make a statement would have been better than a canned corporate response, no offense Sara. The C&D and this post just smacks of oppressive legal manuevering and very uncharacteristic of O'Reilly. If Adaptive Path makes a similar move on "AJAX", we need to move on to Web 3.0 - this is BS.
Agreed. This really did not help the PR of the company. Though O'Reilly came up with an innovative conference title in 2003, three years later the term was a commonplace buzzword. One that describes something in no way affiliated/related to O'Reilly; much as the "Internet" is a term that has very little to do with Syngress Publishing.
It is unfortunate that there was such fierce backlash (and trolling), but the reply really failed to address what the community was so upset about to begin with.
Incredibly stupid, stupid move.
First, CMP Media already *registered* "Web 2.0" in 2003...
Second, the way people are using "Web 2.0" doesn't associated it with ORA... it's well on the way to generic town, population unregisterable.
Third, ORA just bought a metric a**load of bad will in the web community.
Way to go, Tim, Sara and Brady! Not only are you on shaky legal ground, you've alienated the very community you want to market to! Whoo-hoo!
I have twelve O'Reilly books. I'm not buying any more. This is fucking bullshit.
Who gives a shit if you were there first? You're still assholes who are enforcing a pending servicemark on THE NAME OF AN INDUSTRY.
When will companies learn this kind of behavior gives the public a very negative view of the company as a whole? Never probably, there's too many greedy people sitting at the tops of all these companies trying to make money off a term that's been widely adopted by the internet community as a whole.
boo O'Reilly!
It was obviously a poor decision by O'Reilly to go down this route. It's easily fixed.
Tim:"We made a mistake"
Sara:"I made a mistake"
Hey, we all make bad judgment calls from time to time.
Then we can all look forward to attending "The O'Reilly Web 2.0 Conference". The only frustrating thing is waiting while the key decision maker is on vacation.
The upside is that it has brought attention to the award winning Tom Raftery and the Web 2.0 conference (:))in Cork. I'm looking forward to Tim and Tom having a laugh about it on Tom's Podleaders site.
You know, I think it's high time that Oreilly tastes its own medicine. Looking over their various book titles, I see many, many egregious trademark infringements. Oreilly should not be allowed to publish books entitled "The Mac Tiger Server Black Book," "All About Your iPod Photo," "AppleScript in a Nutshell," "Crossing Platforms A Macintosh/Windows Phrasebook," "Mac OS X V.10.2 Jaguar Book," "Degunking Linux," "Hack Proofing Sun Solaris 8," and may other titles they chose which obviously flagrently misappropriate others' IP.
Can you imagine if Tim Berners-Lee acted the way Oreilly did, by popularizing the terms "Web" and "world wide web" and waited until they were ubiquitous and threatened to sue those who sponsored events and projects which supported his invention? It would have been inconsciable.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Bjarne Stroustrup handled the C++ service mark the way O'Reilly handled Web 2.0? We'd still be using primarily COBOL or BASIC or possibly C, and object oriented application would have taken a lot longer to catch on due to the limited dissemination of information on the matter. Of course in the "Web 2.0" case (let's face it: it's just a rejuvination and extension of DHTML design techniques) it's seeming to me that O'Reilly is intending to corner a monopoly on documenting those techniquesm because if a PHB (or professor) is looking at technical books his programmers (or student) want/need to buy, he's of course going to learn toward "Web 2.0" entitled publications rather than "AJAX" or simply "Javascript" or "HTML" titles because manager types are often swayed by trendy buzzwords.
I can see O'Reilly's point to an extent; but that ought to have been clear up front that they did not want the term to become ubiquitous. Instead what they did was handle it like certain prior-art-patenting dirtbags practicing the "submarine patent" business practice (ref: Rim's Blackberry suit and recent payoff). It's dirty pool and O'Reilly has got to see that and admit that not only did they do wrong by handling the specific alleged "infringement" wrong, but the whole "Web 2.0" ordeal is flat-out wrong and belongs in the public domain now. Shame on you, O'Reilly, for using the submarine tactic.
Contrary to many marketers' belief, not all PR is good PR. Bad PR is bad PR and IT professionals often hold grudges forever, leading to either negative press, bad reviews, NO reviews, or product boycotts. IMHO you should do the right thing and apologise to the community at large, offer the mark "Web 2.0" under a creative commons license, and just let it go.
Now just a meta-comment: I found JP's post (dated 25 May 11:09) to be hilarious and great satire of the Web 2.0 ordeal, and to be fair to you folks at O'Reilly, you folks should be commended for letting posts such as that stand undeleted in this thread. It shows that you are listening to your customers.
The reason of confusion stems, as some before has pointed out, from the fact that the posting did not clarify exactly what was service marked.
If it is the word "Web 2.0", even if it is limited to conference use only, I think is a bad decision/move for O'Reilly, since the word itself is so generic and used in many occasions to define the category/purpose of the conference. It would anger many people, which will cause friction and O'Reilly will need to divert many resource to cope with such reaction. What's more, the move will be seen as counter to the real spirit of "Web 2.0" which O'Reilly has been in the center to advocate, and hurt your brand heavily.
If it is the word "Web 2.0 Conference" I think it is a reasonable action for for-profit company in order to secure their service brand, since it should be considered like a product name.
Having said that, I think it would of have been best for O'Reilly *not* to service mark this in the first place, and if possible, you should forfeit the right to do so.
The reason why I think that way is that most of the people who are your clients already know that O'Reilly is the center advocate and forward thinker to this phenomenon.
Many people understood what "Web 2.0" is through Tim's definition, and through O'Reilly's conference. You have already established stake in the word through your past action and efforts without going through any legal protection. I'm quite sure if some company other than O'Reilly claimed they were the first to coin the term, people would just laugh and dismiss such claim.
And let's face it, this word just defines just a step of internet evolution. I trust O'Reilly will work hard to explore the next aspect of internet and serve as the center of community.
Rather than alienating your allies/clients, why not be what you are, and let the people hail the wisdom?
Damn. Now I'll have to tell the bred of super spiders that I'm raising to find a new name for their webs.
Ann,
I'm the one! The views that I express are mine and not my company's however I blog about the same idea in my companies blog as well.
I'm saying that Web 2.0 doesn't exist. And this whole thing proved that it is merely a service trademark now. I have the right to technically challenge people when they start to talk about how beautiful Web 2.0. But they cannot come up with technical satisfactory explanations.
I'm glad because thanks to this incident, people would understand that Web 2.0 is nothing but a strategic move from a greedy company...
And the link that you added contains just my reaction to someone who thinks that he talks the talk but who cannot defend their ideas when challenged. So, are you a Web 2.0 fan?
Tim is a wolf in sheeps clothing, always has been. As least now everyone knows it.
I'm so done with O'Reilly, I'll just buy books from Manning and Apress now. Screw the corporate companies. They only care about money, not community.
I was once involved in a start-up that was threatened with legal action by O'Reilly. Tim talks a good game about being magnanimous, but he is ultimately a businessman who will protect what he thinks is his. In our case, it turned out there was no legal basis for O'Reilly's claim, but we spent several thousand dollars in legal fees to find that out. It was a lot of money to us at the time (still is). I still buy their books, 'cause they're just that good, but I wish he would practice what he preaches. It grates to listen to him.
O'Reilly spends so much time promoting the idea of open source and sharing that, regardless of protecting business marks, this seems incredibly disingenuous to me. On one hand it seems O'Reilly wants the IT world to be abuzz with references to Web 2.0 technologies and to identify them with the term "Web 2.0" and yet they don't want anyone else to use the term in the title of any conference, etc.?
Listen carefully Tim and company, this is the sound of someone who once believed in you quickly losing faith...
Thanks a lot for clearing that up. You obviously have good intentions. [/sarcasm]
I'll never buy an O'Reilly book again.
"Much Ado about nothing... ".
Thank you, Bill, for being the voice of reason.
O'Reilly, thanks for the books.
Get your own "Tim O'Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole" graphic here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/153656919/
It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!
Tim and cohorts,
why do you think US law applies in Ireland? In case you don't know where Ireland is, it is a rather nice country in Europe. You do know where Europe is, don't you? Ah well, you probably don't. I guess you think it is somewhere in Texas.
Actually, the odd part is that your mark seems very descriptive and/or generic. I am suprised the trademark office or the opposing company has not simply filed to cancel your mark as its still within the five years after initial application.
Wow, I just bought two O'Reilly books this week. I hope I still have the receipt.
They let someone else use their service mark, doesn't that mean they are not vigorously defending it? And that they will lose it?
If the excuse for the letter was that they are required to defend the mark, then they have failed that requirement (giving up and letting the other conference use the mark is the opposite of defending it) and should now lose that servicemark.
Yes? No?
Don't get too upset *yet*... It's not as if Tim O'Reilly initiated this, he's on vacation, is he not?
This is probably just one of those fuck ups by incompetent underlings/peons that exist in each and every company.
If Tim hasn't lost his mind, heads will roll when he comes back. Hopefully, starting with Ms. Sara Winge's. Sorry Sara, but surely you understand, it's a pretty standard business practice to get the pink slip when you screw up.
Sara and Brady,
Your firm may have coined the term, and may (or may not) have the legal rights as denoted in your application to the USPTO, but the term is so widely
JP [05.25.06 11:09 PM]
"Sara Winge": I regret to inform you that me and my legal team have applied for a service mark for the business term "Sara Winge." Me, my company -- Consolodated Holding Consortium, Inc. -- and our legal representation hereby "demand" (that's a legal term!) that you immediately cease-and-desist using our business term in any public forum. The term "Sara Winge" was coined in a brainstorming session from 2003 when we were trying to come up with a new brand name for our top-selling hemorrhoid balm. Any attempts to claim that the term existed prior to said brainstorming session are fraudulent and illegal. I'm sure you understand -- this is pretty standard business practice. The law compels us to take "reasonable steps" to protect our financial interests in "Sara Winge Hemorrhoid Ointment". Hopefully you'll agree to change your name before we ask a judge to issue an injunction against you prior to the launching of next month's "Sara Winge Is A Giant Hemorrhoid Conference."
Thank you for your cooperation. As you know we at the Consolodated Holding Consortium, Inc. are activists for open source and open standards, and opponents of software patents and other incursions of new intellectual property laws into the public domain.