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

theodp writes "On May 16, the USPTO notified CMP Media, which co-presents the Web 2.0 Conference with O'Reilly, that its trademark for Web 2.0 was entitled to be registered. Eight days later, CMP sicced its lawyers on not-for-profit IT@Cork, taking the networking organization to task for not only using the term Web 2.0 for its free conference, but also for linking to a What is Web 2.0 article penned by Tim O'Reilly." It should be noted that their trademark only applies to the titles of industry events (CMP is a show organizer).

Dibs

In an effort to curb the misuse of my technological terms by the industry, I am now trademarking Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, Web 6.0, Web 7.0, Web 8.0, Web 9.0, Web 1337.0, Web 69.0 and Web Pi.

Web 3.0-9.0 refer to the idea of websites being more and more progressively interactive with the user. The final, Web 9.0, requiring electrodes implanted in your brain so you actually walk between websites and are subject to the sounds & smells of the internet. It is not advised to use 9.0 if you don't have adequate protection against script kiddies.

Web 1337.0 refers to the idea that websites should be covered in flying toasters and dancing Jesuses and massive abuse of blinking marquee tags.

I'd describe the other Web x.0s but then Slashdot would be linked to those descriptions and I would be obligated to sue the OSTG.

This is an unfortunate but necessary move on my part to protect the idea of these terms. On what grounds do I register these trademarks? I have meme maps! And I'm not afraid to publish them!

Re:Dibs

I am now trademarking... Web Pi.

I think you are being irrational.

Re:Dibs

I think he's being a bit transcendental.

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

It's easier for us Fortran programmers.

God is REAL unless declared INTEGER. Simple. :-)

Re:Dibs

In an effort to curb the misuse of my technological terms by the industry, I am now trademarking Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, Web 6.0, Web 7.0, Web 8.0, Web 9.0, Web 1337.0, Web 69.0 and Web Pi.

Just in case anyone is seriously thinking of doing this, be aware that Trademark protection is only afforded when you use the term. If you don't use the term, your trademark will fall through in any court case.

I'm not a lawyer, but setting up a website with joke articles about Web 3.0 - Web Pi should allow you to register the term. Whether or not it will be enforcable is a matter you'll need to ask a lawyer. Thankfully, the EFF and/or PJ would probably be willing to listen to your plan, perhaps even provide legal advice. (Maybe. I don't speak for them, so take this with a grain of salt.)

Re:Dibs

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

I have the solution

I am now creating Web 2.1 and releasing it under a full open creative commons license. Use it however you want.

Web 2.0 is now deprecated.

Well then...

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

Re:Well then...

Nah. We just need to go to 2.1, and open source the trademark on that. It's certainly a bigger upgrade than most releases.

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

Oh yea?

My conference is going to be Web 2.1 Service Pack 1 Release Candidate 3 Build 5781 and all of those guys are going to feel quite the fool.

"only applies to the titles of industry events"

I'll believe that when I see it. I know the law says trademarks are compartmentalized, but go start a landscaping business named "Microsoft" and tell me how it goes.

OH RLY?

And the answer isn't YEAH RLY!

Re:OH RLY?

You must be lost.

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

Stupid.

What is the point of coining a meaningless buzzword to describe a perfectly normal evolution of technology, if you're then going to sue everyone who uses it? It's not like Web 2.0 has any hard assets or IP.

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

Re:Stupid.

Well, the sad thing is, they don't own any of the technology. It's not even a technology as such, as much as it is a design philosophy-shift based on percieved public demand and commonly available tools. There is no reason we couldn't have done Ajax 5 years ago, it's just that Javascript is more mature, and more reliably supported in browsers, and the real strengths of XML are better understood now than they were then.

Seems like all they want is the ability to host exclusive conferences on their trademarked topic, which is fine sort of, but I'm irked enough by companies abusing IP law that I'm not even going to think about paying to go to a conference where the topic is as vague as "Web 2.0" and the guys who run it are suing people who try to use "Web 2.0". Screw that. I'll go across the street to the Ajax confrence. At least people agree what that means even if it's overused.

Re:Stupid.

Trademarks, my god, I so don't want to go here because it's just common sense, but not even a little bit of it is applied.

Web 2.0. EVERYONE know's what that means, it's just completely generic.

It's version 2 of the Web.

What is the Web? Not something you can trademark that's for sure.

But ok, it's not really about that, it's about trademarking the name of a convention or trade show.

So what? Why is that any different?

I can't trademark Hamburger, and I shouldn't be able to for ANY reason. It's a freaking WORD with MEANING, not a name.

Sorry, I just really hate what lawyers have done to our society, this is pathetic.

Shame on them

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

Thank Goodness!

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

Dibs 2.0

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

'Web 2.0' Trademarked?

What a fitting metaphor.

Nothing to see here.

Well, you wouldn't expect to be able to hold a local gathering of electronics vendors and call it the Electronic Entertainment Expo.

It's not like they can go after you for making an application and saying it's a "Web 2.0 app". In fact, they'd like that because it would validate their existence.

Wonderful

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

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

Already lost the right to use their trademark

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

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

Simple Fix

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

Buzzword or not, it's totally poor form

It doesn't really matter if it's 'Web 2.0' or 'AJAX' or whatever buzzword is hot at the moment, it's in poor stead that O'Reilly and CMP have acted in this manner against a small not-for-profit. It seems that this show would only stand to benefit THEM as it's focused on the very same things they're purporting to 'protect', so why would they take action against it?

I would be less inclined to call foul if they were filing suit against someone using their trademark to profit unjustly, but unfortunately it's not. This will only harm O'Reilly's reputation.

Tim, get on the case! Do something about this complete and utter ridiculousness.

Cool

While normally I'm not a big fan of trademark silliness, in this case I wholeheartedly approve. Maybe now the stupid meme will finally die.

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

Dibs

Dibs on Web 95OSR2, and Web ME.

Ireland != US

O'Reilly and CMP threatened an Irish company over the use of Web 2.0 based on a US application for a service mark it seems. Well unless O'Reilly and CMP have an Irish or EU trademark or service mark, they have no rights to the term in Europe. Perhaps someone should explain that harsh reality to them. In threatening IT@Cork, O'Reilly and CMP have shown themselves to be no better than Jeff Bezos with his One Click patent etc. It is sad to see such a great reputation destroyed by the careless actions of lawyers.

Time to use the bulk registrations

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

Goodbye buzzword!

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

CMP Media?

Same people who bought Black Hat? Sucks.

O'Reilly Radar response...

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

In retrospect, we wish we'd contacted the IT@Cork folks personally and talked over the issue before sending legal correspondence. In fact, it turns out that they asked Tim to speak at the conference, though our Web 2.0 Conference team didn't know that. We've sent a followup letter to Donagh Kiernan, agreeing that IT@Cork can use the Web 2.0 name this year. While we stand by the principle that we need to protect our "Web 2.0" mark from unauthorized use in the context of conferences, we apologize for the way we initially handled the issue with IT@Cork.

That's just an excerpt, follow the link for the whole [brief] comment. They also point out, rightfully so, that they would not be able to have a "LinuxWorld conference," and this is no different. It's a service mark, they have to defend it, end of story.

How is O'Reilly involved in this letter?

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

Somebody please trademark it.

So everyone stops using it :-)

Something to consider

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

Date of Status: 2006-05-10

Filing Date: 2003-11-03

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

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

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

Thank God

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

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

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

Here's a good explanation about how IP rights...

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

- Very, very insightful -

....was granted without adequate review of prior art, and further, that even were it ultimately found valid, such broad patents serve only to hold back further innovation.

It is plainly wrong for companies to take our IP protection on overly broad terms, which are already in the public domain - but to then seek to enforce them is clearly even worse.

The writer of the Open Letter to Jeff Bezos knew what he was talking about.

Filing Objection

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

Fine.

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

Now at Borders

"Litigation in a nutshell"

AH, CMP!

Doesn't surprise me from CMP; I think the bottom line is all that matters for this company. I still remember when they bought Byte Magazine, put it on "hiatus" for months while they "restructured" it, then decided it was better to *kill* it, and then had the gall to offer subscribers a "migration" to Windows Magazine; why in hell would I migrate from one of the few cross-platform-oriented magazines around, to *WINDOWS MAGAZINE*? I told them no, and of course I didn't get a refund on my subscription money.

There are those in CMP who genuinely care about their audience (such as a very kind person who offered me a subscription to Byte on the web after I made a comment similar to this one here, on slashdot, see this story [slashdot.org]); but it looks like upper management is filled with nothing but sharks. And nasty ones, at that.

Cancelling my OSCON plans...

Well, I probably can't change the patent situation soon enough, but I can change my mind about attending OSCON this year.

I sure had a nice time last year, and it felt great to be a part of something different - but it looks like things are changing at the O'Reilly camp. Thanks for the fun and learning guys - especially you, Randall! - but I think I'll save my money this year.

If this is what Web 2.0 means, I think will wait for the sequel . . .

That's one way...

...to cut down on the use of an overused, increasingly meaningless, buzzword.

dibs 2.0

All your Web 2.0 are belong to us!

...it had to be said...

O'Reilly has a reply

It seems they regret the way this was handled [oreilly.com]

O'Reilly "Original Web 2.0 Asshole" Graphic

Get your own "Tim O'Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole" graphic here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/153656919/ [flickr.com] It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!

Im optimistic and understanding to utmost degree :

We will just not use the fucking 'web 2.0' string in any of our conversations and text thats all. God forbid if i am going to pay any moron royalty for using 7 char length string in my text. Tell them to shove web 2.0, 2.0 times up their arses.

Naw, White Wolf has prior art.

Think White Wolf has dibs here: can't see much difference... Digital Web 2.0" [amazon.com]

• Bunch of geeks talking about how the magic is back? Check
• Big crash not too long ago in the backhistory? Check
• Now the rules have changed? Check
• The right combination of arcane tools will bring about fame and fortune? Check

Possibly a Good Thing

At first I thought this was totally absurd, I mean trademarking a term that basically characterizes the evolution of technology...and only for the purpose of selling this techno-ideology to businesses is just insane, or is it really?

I mean considering how much this term is going to be thrown around in the coming year(s) and there is potentially so much to be gained from companies employing new IT strategies based on this concept, maybe it really is a good idea to have someone as reputable and unbiased as OReilly protecting this trademark to ensure that scam artists and shaddy businesses cant try to throw it around to their advantage.

Considering that they seem to be worried mainly about conferences I think this is probably valid because these conferences can have a lot of influence on people who attend them hoping to learn about this new approach and see how it fits into their company strategy. It is important that we not have what we had with the first tech bubble with a bunch of people pitching unwarranted hype and then having the people that actually listened to them go off and blow a bunch of money on a technological and business failure. This would only deter the Web 2.0 approach from really gaining the momentum it deserves.

Just think about it, if we had had this type of enforcement with the first tech bubble...the bubble might not have burst in the first place because people would have been making smarter business decisions.

Whatever though, just as long as they dont go suing people just for using the term and strictly for the purpose of upholding the validity of the term.

changelog

Web 2 Changelog

Version 2.0.1
2006-05-26
* Bumped version number to make trademark a moot point.

Version 2.0
2006-05-25
* Trademark Registered by O'Reilly.

Good. May Web 2.0 rest in pieces

There's nothing like a trademark and some entity becoming asses about its' use to kill it off.

May the web continue to evolve, but for heavens sake every evolution doesn't need a new name.

Can't wait to see what Web 3.0 will be...