My Photo

« Road Trip Thank You | Main | really detailed error messages »

May 25, 2006


Where did you get the idea this is Tim O'Reilly's suit? The letter came from CMP, not O'Reilly.

First line of the legal letter clearly states it is being driven by the O'Reilly group in my view. It is not likely, again my opinion, this would be going anywhere without O'Reilly's express permission/understanding given the partnership with CMP. It would be, in my view, a cheap cop out for Tim to say, sorry, CMP not me. He is in a position to tell CMP to back off. I'll accept he didn't know about it but not accept he doesn't control it.

my 2 cents, thank you for stopping by.

They cooperate on the conferences. I can't imagine they're cooperating on this legal defense of a pending U.S. service mark overseas! I give a little more credit to O'Reilly's lawyers... until further details emerge.

I totally agree with your comments. The larger issue, in my view, is the letter using "in cooperation" as a hammer. In my view, the O'Reilly response will be the telling issue. I suspect/bet O'Reilly will basically tell CMP to shut up or never get any O'Reilly business again, tell the world, sorry, Web 2.0 away and be done with it.

If it is anything less, well, grab some popcorn as the show will be interesting. It doesn't take away from the core issue of brand protection and I'll be right there with the update of how O'Reilly stood up to this nonsense, etc.

Thanks for stopping by.


I've always been a big buyer and fan of the O'Reilly books, but your really hate to see the little guy get pushed around.

not sure, but even if it' CMP suing or issuing the C&D't they by a due diligence process to inform their client to such notification process ??

Else CMP can be mae liable for malpratice and defamtion of charater.. after all web2.0 is a repuation landscape :)-

Hope Battelle has someting interested to say bout dis. R McR

> Everybody on the planet should immediately
> announce a Web 2.0 conference being held in
> their kitchen.

I can see the headlines:


The USPTO info page for the term "Web 2.0" shows that CMP Media filed the trademark application on Nov 3, 2003 and it has recently been allowed for registration (on April 17th, 2006). Also, this application is applicable to the category of conferences/events only. In other words, anyone else can still use the term "Web 2.0" for anything else. However, it would be a bad idea to try and organize a conference with "Web 2.0" in the name, as CMP Media now (almost) owns the right to that term.

Tom Raftery's conference seems to be in Europe..not sure what the trademark status is over there. But CMP Media are pretty likely to get the trademark over there as well, based on their initial US application. It would be wise for Tom to 'cease and desist'.

O'Reilly though has really mashed up his reputation.

Well, I was wrong. O'Reilly was behind this. I couldn't imagine they could be so foolish.

I'm going to organize a "Web Two Point Oh Conference"... it's technically a different phrase :-P

You misrepresent a cease and desist letter as a lawsuit and you misrepresent the precise service mark in question.


Thanks for stopping by. I think the points about brand, style, etc, were made and I'm not sure the precise issue is the point, but I hear you.

As an O'Reilly Author, I'm pleased to see you. I bought Slash for somebody, nice job on the book.

Rick, thanks for the kind words.

I'm not sure what you mean about "the precise issue". You claim that there's a lawsuit over the term "Web 2.0". The precise issue is a cease and desist letter over the name of a conference that conflicts with a filed service mark on the phrase "Web 2.0 Conference".

There's no lawsuit. There's no general trademarking of the term "Web 2.0". I think your posts misrepresent both facts.

It might be worth a having discussion on the value of filing for and holding a trademark on a term so widely used now (and part of that discussion should consider the use of the term at the point of filing), but that's only possible if the well remains unpoisoned.

I think was I was trying to say (over the jet lag) is that the big picture of tactics and the backlash is, to me, more important that the precise, cease and desist issue you are rightly pointing out. You are completely correct but I don't think it much matters. And, I agree about protecting IP of all types. I think the way the folks went about it represents a good lesson for all start ups and others that play in this big public sandbox. Again, you have a valid point but I think my observation/points are toward a larger lesson about business practice.


I still don't understand. How is Tim O'Reilly "King Evil" if he, O'Reilly, and CMP have done neither of the things your post claims have happened?

In my mind, much of the backlash is from people who do not understand trademarks, service marks, and what actually happened. I keep getting caught up on that point when I try to understand the bigger picture you describe.

(If your big picture is "someone on the Internet misunderstands something and the great global game of telephone spawns all sorts of nasty rumors", then I do get it. I don't think that's what you meant though.)

Given that the VP of Corporate Communications has already started the 'sorry' process, my point of O'reilly over doing it in an attempt to protect IP is pretty much made. There are no nasty rumors, people have been directed to read the letter themselves and watch the results. People are pissed over the way this was handled and don't care if it was an actual lawsuit or legal letter. They object to the tactics and, the corporate communications VP agrees the tactics were wrong. Protecting one's IP is not, at least from me, in debate. If I was exact in stating the nature of the action, a letter, it would not change my objection to the tactics/style of the company.

Off to catch a plane.

How can you say there are no nasty rumors when you elevated a cease and desist letter to a lawsuit? At best, that's irresponsible.

Where's your "I'm dead wrong"?


People are feeling cheated by what CMP/O'Reilly have done. They filed the trademark application in 2003 and used the name for their conference, but didn't indicate anywhere that they had a pending trademark application on "Web 2.0" for conferences. They ought to have indicated a "TM" next to it. Also, all this time they promoted "Web 2.0" as a generic term (Tim's famous article on 'What is Web 2.0'). And now, when they have almost obtained the trademark, and the term is so widely used, they have started the legal thing. This is pretty evil stuff. I don't have any problem with the tactic of trying to defend their IP (sending cease and desist), but I do have a problem with the overall strategy of CMP/O'Reilly in this case.

If there isn't even a bigger and measurable backlash against them and the term Web 2.0 sticks around, there is no reason for CMP/O'Reilly to back down. They are the only ones who can hold a "Web 2.0" conference !

Heh, how little things get's blown out of proportions - let's jump straight to Web 2.1 and leave CMP/O'Reilly tinker with the old hat stuff... and when they try to corner that, jump to 2.2 and so forth - agile numbering I say ;)

Chromatic is right - get your facts straight before posting.

Varun just beat me to it. Web 2.0 is _soOOoo yesturday. 'sides, everyone knows the .0 release is full of bugs. We can all move forward to 2.1 and leave the the buggy o'reilly 2.0 product in the hall of shameful "product" announcements...boohiss!!

The final word?!?!

The comments to this entry are closed.