After much thought and a lot of reading, I'm even more convinced Tim O'Reilly is dead wrong in his efforts to trademark “Web 2.0″, and the people who are supporting him (particularly the Silicon Valley crowd) are nothing more than apologists who can't see the forest through the trees. Maybe O'Reilly invented the phrase “Web 2.0″ or maybe he didn't – but nevertheless it's now an integral part of the high-tech lexicon so trying to put a legal claim on it is a mistake. Furthermore, the real value in “Web 2.0″ for O'Reilly is not owning it but how many people closely associate it with him. This gives O'Reilly cache and status as one of the Web 2.0 thought leaders. And shame on the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, which has apparently never met an idea that it won't patent or trademark.
Update: It appears that Darcy DiNucci may have invented “Web 2.0″ given it appeared in a paper written in 1999. Hat tip to Rob Hyndman, who has excellent post on Web 2.0 that combines his expertise as a lawyer, his passion for the Web and his involvement with mesh, which I suspect we won't be calling “Canada's Web 2.0 conference” anymore.
Okay, Vonage ended the week down at $13.20, down $3.98 from its IPO issue price. The company can't be accused of leaving money on the table! But what I want to know is who bought the IPO and why. I mean, there was so much criticism surrounding Vonage's large losses, uncertain prospects and the fierce industry competition that you would think investors would be cautious about jumping into the fray. You wonder how many Vonage customers took advantage of the “opportunity” to buy into the IPO on the belief that a company offering low prices would equate to a good investment.
Finally, one of the most intriguing notions of the week is Scott Karp's contention that the downturn of MySpace has started. Scott's thesis is based on Alexa data and chats with people who study how teenagers behave (if that's even possible!). Mathew Ingram has a nice take on Scott's idea. He agrees with Stowe Boyd that MySpace is like a hot nightclub where people are willing to stand in long line-ups to get in – only to quickly abandon it when something new comes along. A good read is Mathew's column on social networks and their hunt for revenue.
-
Mark’s Blogs
Find ME Online
-
3 Comments
Mark, I believe the customer allocation for Vonage direct share purchase program is 13.5%. That was a a really weak institution book. There were some serious hurt handed out on Thu and Fri….
Firstly, O'Reilly is only claiming to own the “Web 2.0″ service mark as it pertains to conferences and events. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=lclroo.2.1
Everyone has the right to protect his intellectual property. But it appears that O’Reilly may not have protected his. A genericized trademark is “a trademark or brand name which is often used as the colloquial description for a particular type of product or service as a result of widespread popular or cultural usage.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
I have read that in America and other countries, for years, there have been numerous conferences and other events with “Web 2.0†in the name. http://blog.softtechvc.com/2006/05/the_web_20_lega.html
If this is true, then since O’Reilly and his company did not previously enforce their rights and send Cease & Desist letters to those conference organizers, it seems to me that “Web 2.0†has been allowed to become a genericized trademark. Hence, trademark rights may no longer be enforceable or at least it may be difficult for O’Reilly and crew to now legally enforce their rights. A long list of other genericized trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Also, see the very brief opinion of The Trademark Blog on this topic: http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2006/05/web_20_v_web_20.html
Note: Although I twice submitted the above comment to John Battelle's SearchBlog and to the O'Reilly Radar, both sites disallowed my comments from being posted each time.