Comments on: O’Reilly vs. IT@Cork and Web 2.0 - a legalistic solution http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/ Tom Raftery, social media consultant, speaker, blogger and podcaster Fri, 16 May 2008 18:57:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: David Callan http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-12103 David Callan Tue, 30 May 2006 13:18:09 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-12103 Tom why not chane it to 'web 2.1 or web 2.0.1' with all the readers you have, it would spread through blogosphere very quickly. There's no way their would be a legal comeback for them. Greta site by the way. Tom why not chane it to ‘web 2.1 or web 2.0.1′ with all the readers you have, it would spread through blogosphere very quickly. There’s no way their would be a legal comeback for them. Greta site by the way.

]]> By: Tom Raftery http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-12071 Tom Raftery Tue, 30 May 2006 08:13:02 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-12071 Mike, I think Simon McGarr and yourself are talking about different things. Simon is talking about CMP/O'Reilly's (pending) application for a trademark in the EU while you are talking about their (now granted) application in the US. Mike,

I think Simon McGarr and yourself are talking about different things. Simon is talking about CMP/O’Reilly’s (pending) application for a trademark in the EU while you are talking about their (now granted) application in the US.

]]> By: Mike http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-12070 Mike Tue, 30 May 2006 07:58:52 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-12070 McGarr is incorrect. The period for public opposition started in September. After one month, the trademark is approved if nobody complains. Paperwork takes another month or so in most cases. However, this one dragged out until earlier this month. The only reason why the TDR records at the USPTO seem to show the trademark process was not closed until this month was that the original application from 2003 was filed on the basis of future use, not a current ongoing use. This requires a final proof that it has eventually been used in trade. However, even that was done earlier this month. It's all over. Legally, they're in a pretty strong position. McGarr is incorrect. The period for public opposition started in September. After one month, the trademark is approved if nobody complains. Paperwork takes another month or so in most cases.

However, this one dragged out until earlier this month. The only reason why the TDR records at the USPTO seem to show the trademark process was not closed until this month was that the original application from 2003 was filed on the basis of future use, not a current ongoing use. This requires a final proof that it has eventually been used in trade. However, even that was done earlier this month. It’s all over.

Legally, they’re in a pretty strong position.

]]> By: The Midnight Court » Blog Archive » Free at Last, Free at Last http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11916 The Midnight Court » Blog Archive » Free at Last, Free at Last Mon, 29 May 2006 15:41:59 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11916 [...] Speaking of Web Two Point Oh, what was all that about?  Simon McGarr has useful, though unwarranted take on the legal aspects of the issue on Tuppenceworth, which I’m sure the principals involved have absorbed at this stage. I commented myself on Tom’s blog that it should be possible to lodge an objection to the applied for mark as a cough softening measure.  Surely, logic tells us that a mark applied for is not a mark approved and as such as no legal standing and certainly can’t form the basis for scary legal harrassment. [...] [...] Speaking of Web Two Point Oh, what was all that about?  Simon McGarr has useful, though unwarranted take on the legal aspects of the issue on Tuppenceworth, which I’m sure the principals involved have absorbed at this stage. I commented myself on Tom’s blog that it should be possible to lodge an objection to the applied for mark as a cough softening measure.  Surely, logic tells us that a mark applied for is not a mark approved and as such as no legal standing and certainly can’t form the basis for scary legal harrassment. [...]

]]> By: Advanced Technology Products Interactive » Blog Archive » More on the O Reilly verses IT@Cork http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11875 Advanced Technology Products Interactive » Blog Archive » More on the O Reilly verses IT@Cork Mon, 29 May 2006 08:52:12 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11875 [...] http://www.tomrafteryit.net/thanks-microsoft/ http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/ Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...] [...] http://www.tomrafteryit.net/thanks-microsoft/ http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/ Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

]]> By: adam http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11867 adam Mon, 29 May 2006 07:48:29 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11867 What Bernie said. What Bernie said.

]]> By: Bernie Goldbach http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11841 Bernie Goldbach Mon, 29 May 2006 05:38:16 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-vs-itcork-and-web-20-a-legalistic-solution/#comment-11841 just. do. nothing. just. do. nothing.

]]>