Web 2.0 trademark nonsense: Killing its biggest benefactor?

Hi Matt,

I enjoy the blog -- thanks for the perspectives.

But on this one -- to say that Tim O'Reilly was the "first to centralize discussion around the topic"? What about InternetWorld - produced by Jupiter Media - that was running in the late 90's? Wasn't that a central forum for discussion about the next generation of Internet techologies? That's just one of numerous examples.

In my opinion, "Web 2.0" is nothing more than a cutesey little name for the same concept (the evolution of the web and its underlying technologies) that has been known long before the exact term "Web 2.0" emerged.

I don't think it's wrong for them to want to trademark a brand that they created that's worth a lot of money. But I don't think the idea that Tim was THE individual who centralized the discussion is even remotely supported by history. With all due respect to Tim O'Reilly, ever since the Internet sprung up -- EVERYONE has been talking about where the Web is evolving, where it's heading, how it's driving online behavior patterns and business models, etc.

I think it would be interesting -- too -- to try to hear someone articulate the difference between the "Business 2.0" and "Web 2.0" brands. Business 2.0 -- which sprung up out of "eCompanyNow" -- came out in the late 90's, and was all about how the Internet and related technologies are changing the way business is conducted. How anyone affiliated with the "Web 2.0" brand might successfully argue that their brand is drastically different would be lost on me.

I think O'Reilly's fans feel betrayed by this affair, hence the vehemence of the response. There was a straightforward, O'Reilly-style way to handle this:

1) Announce that CMP was about to receive the servicemark for events.
2) Note that, since they filed for it, numerous web 2.0 events have been held.
3) Indicate that they'd like to protect the Web 2.0 Conference brand.
4) Ask the web community for feedback on how to proceed.

Hi Matt,
First of all, just to say I enjoy following your blog.

Just a point to think about:
I must say that I find the entire trademark system a bit draconian, and mixed with fuzziness. Where do we put the line on what is considered a trademark or even a patent? Many of the great ideas in history and of our time would have been crippled from the beginning had they been copyrighted - and the same may go for "Web 2.0" had its trademark been enforced earlier - wouldn't you think?

The entire concept has been taken a bit too far in my opinion. I understand the need of advertisers to have a recognized brandname or logo or slogan, but when the cellular company Orange for example sued another company for the use of the color orange in their logo - that's crossing a line. And trying to trademark a buzz word that stands for free flow of information, among other things - that strikes me as simply absurd.

Matt -- I am neither a "lawyer nor a historian", but I am also well aware that Web 2.0's propagation owes everything to Tim. I said as much on my site, and I also said I think this is runaway lawyers, not Tim being cute with a meme.

FWIW, I agree with Liam in a prior comment wrt a friendlier way of handling all of this. And that's not the only way, because there are plenty that would have been less like poking a stick in a blog nest.