Comments on: O’Reilly’s mean-spirited response

By: Shame On You Tim O’Reilly

Shame On You Tim O’Reilly — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:08:58 +0000

[...] O’Reilly sued ITCork, an Irish organization for holding a Web 2.0 event (see here and here). His attempt to extract his pound of flesh backfired so badly that he is resorting to questionable [...]

By: DESIGN-O-MATIC » Web 2.0 Dystopia?

DESIGN-O-MATIC » Web 2.0 Dystopia? — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:52:17 +0000

[...] other events. Needless to say this slap from CMP was met with a considerable amount of outrage and support for IT@Cork Web. Two days later the threat was withdrawn in a weirdly unofficial way by Cory [...]

By: Fight the power! » Twenty Major - Still smoking in Dublin bars

Fight the power! » Twenty Major - Still smoking in Dublin bars — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:38:48 +0000

[...] Relax, Tom! I’m on it… [...]

By: Bart Busschots » Blog Archive » And the Web2.0 Fun Continues

Bart Busschots » Blog Archive » And the Web2.0 Fun Continues — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:51:48 +0000

[...] So, before I bore you all with my personal feelings on this great big mess I’ll just bring you up to speed on the facts of what have happened since my post yesterday. Firstly, O’Reilly ate some humble pie and rang IT@Cork and apologised for sending in the lawyers before even talking to the organisers (good!), that was unfortunately followed by what Tom Raftery very sensibly calls “O’Reilly’s Mean Spirited Response“. There also followed some attempts by the O’Reilly PR department to save some face which just seem like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me; “Controversy About Our Web 2.0 Service Mark” and “More on Our Web 2.0 Service Mark“. [...]

By: Web 2.0 taken, try Web 2.1 at Vidize.com

Web 2.0 taken, try Web 2.1 at Vidize.com — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:24:47 +0000

[...] Since O’Reilly took web 2.0 and trademarked it, a lot of people have been wondering what it means. It didn’t seem like a big deal until CMP started sending cease-and-desist letters to non-profit organizations doing web conferences. [...]

By: Kelly Lohman

Kelly Lohman — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:05:03 +0000

To hell with O’Reily! By all means, just call it Web 2.0.1 or something stupid like that in order to get around their BS games!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 31 May 2006 02:43:12 +0000

Actually – its me that owns the phrase Web 2.0 – and i’d like it back please!

By: Tuppenceworth.ie blog » Web 2.0 Trade Mark (pt 2)

Tuppenceworth.ie blog » Web 2.0 Trade Mark (pt 2) — Sun, 28 May 2006 23:26:29 +0000

[...] Further to it@Cork’s problems, related here and here, I was mulling over what I might suggest if I had somebody come to me in their situation. [...]

By: Jonathan Orlev

Jonathan Orlev — Sun, 28 May 2006 13:50:41 +0000

I think that that what happens when you let lawyers deal with the event.

I wonder if Tim O’Reilly asked to register “Web 2.0″ as a trademark.

If he did, then I’ll do my best to buy books from other publishers, because he is definitely not what he makes of himself.

But I am not sure he was even aware to the whole thing. After all, layers writes it. Some of them are both idiots and devilish.

By: MacManX.com » CMP Media LLC Attacks IT@Cork Over Web 2.0 Trademark

MacManX.com » CMP Media LLC Attacks IT@Cork Over Web 2.0 Trademark — Sat, 27 May 2006 22:05:57 +0000

[...] After a small exchange of communications, IT@Cork was allowed to keep “Web 2.0″ in the title of the upcoming Web 2.0 Half-Day Conference, but has been forbidden to use “Web 2.0″ in future conference titles. [...]

By: Troy Angrignon

Troy Angrignon — Sat, 27 May 2006 21:25:42 +0000

Put up a Legal Campaign defense fund page with a Paypal account on it and ask every blogger to spread the word. You would have a $200,000 legal defense fund in about 48 hours.

AND file the trademark in Ireland as was suggested above.

And change it to “workshop” from “conference”

This is hilarious. Sorry to hear that it hit at the same time as the new baby. Make your new son proud!

Good luck!

By: Bartificer

Bartificer — Sat, 27 May 2006 20:46:24 +0000

And the Web2.0 Fun Continues…

I posted about this yesterday after I was sent a link to the post on Tom Raftery’s blog about O’Reilly sending lawyers after an Irish Conference. I was firstly shocked and secondly annoyed about it so I decided I’d keep an eye on it and see how th…

By: eucap

eucap — Sat, 27 May 2006 11:43:20 +0000

Tim O’Reilly Don’t Be Evil…

Big discussion on the blogosphere surrounding O’Reilly’s “web2.0″ trademark. Tim O’Reilly prevented a not-for-profit organization using the term “web2.0″ in its conference title, alleging trademark infringement. Though the dispute has been settl…

By: Keith

Keith — Sat, 27 May 2006 09:11:11 +0000

Not entirely toothless. Both Ireland and the US are signatories of the Madrid Protocol.

That said Robert’s right: just use ‘Symposium’ or something instead of ‘Conference’. Here’s something I posted up on Damien’s blog to explain why I don’t think they’d try and push this to court:

However, I very much doubt that if this went to court that CMP would have a leg to stand on seeing as (a) theyâ€™re using the mark so that their conference wonâ€™t get mixed up with others (which is what trade and service marks are for), but the conference names are different enough (sharing only the â€˜Web 2.0â€² element) that they couldnâ€™t be confused; (b) the Oâ€™Reilly /CMP conference is primarily targeted at North America, whereas the IT@Cork conference is targeted at Ireland: thereâ€™s no overlap of market; (c) Oâ€™Reilly have, through their promotion of the phrase â€˜Web 2.0â€² as a general concept, inadvertently managed to water down the brand.

My gut feeling is that Tom and the rest of the IT@Cork crowd will be vindicated and that Oâ€™Reilly will come out with their credibility somewhat bruised. CMP: nobody really likes them much anyway.

Give ‘em hell, and don’t sign!

By: Bernie Goldbach

Bernie Goldbach — Sat, 27 May 2006 07:02:12 +0000

I think your best action with American legal posturing is inaction. CMP is entitled to attempt a global reach on the conference trade but that effort is toothless inside the EU.

Effort might be better spent in focusing some of the noise generated around an alleged trademark infraction to ensuring Irish tech developers actually attend the event.

By: Markus

Markus — Sat, 27 May 2006 05:31:21 +0000

Web 2.0 Is not trademarked in Ireland, I suggest you go and trademark it.

http://www.patentsoffice.ie/eRegister/Query/TMQuery.asp

By: vinnie mirchandani

vinnie mirchandani — Sat, 27 May 2006 03:29:30 +0000

summer’s comimg, they just want a reason to come to the West of Ireland – do the Ring etc. I would tell them to kiss your Blarney Stone..

By: Tuppenceworth.ie blog » Web 2.0 Conference- What’s A Trade Mark Worth?

Fri, 26 May 2006 22:58:43 +0000

[...] Without seeing the papers enclosed with that, it would be impossible to make even an idle assessment of them. Still, in general terms I’d point out that an application for a trade mark, like an application for anything else, is not proof that you’ve been granted such protection. [...]

By: Tom Raftery

Tom Raftery — Fri, 26 May 2006 22:49:39 +0000

Tom, sounds like your stuck on Web 2.0 because you garnered a bit of popularity from your problem

On the contrary Randy – right about now with the new baby, I could do without all this hassle. I am stuck on this because I think it is wrong that any company try to trademark a term as generic as Web 2.0 (and anything that sounds like it according to their C&D).

I agree with Keith – change the name as Scoble suggests and get on back to enjoying life with your new baby.

Chris, as I pointed out already – the names Robert suggested are contain the phrase Web 2.0 and therefore cannot be used (except now by IT@Cork).

Darren – thanks

By: Edge Case » Blog Archive » You can keep Web 2.0 Tim, we’ve got Greasan-a-Do

Fri, 26 May 2006 22:05:47 +0000

[...] Tom, why not use the Irish translation: "Gréasán-a-Dó" *? It has the advantage of having the same cadence as "Web 2.0", and I think it sounds lovely in a Cork accent! [...]