« From EdTech 2006 | Main | 10 Things Learned at EdTech 2006 »

May 26, 2006

Web 2.0 Conference in Cork

RADAR O'REILLY--the place where I first read the term "Web 2.0"--reminded me that I have plans to attend a technical conference in Cork in early June. Besides being a good way to network, it offers some interesting speakers who have some insight to the read/write web that we develop during multimedia programming modules in Tipperary Institute. Among other things, we use O'Reilly electronic publications that point to new Web 2.0 books, an online Safari e-mail alert service and a pile of handsome books bedecked with woodcut animals on their covers. As much as we rely on the O'Reilly empire to guide students on their way to learning about new developments in our internetworked world, we didn't know that O'Reilly (or the conference hosting company CMP) laid exclusive claim to the adjective "Web 2.0" and in fact, we don't support the claim. We have authored dozens of web pages bearing the term "Web 2.0" along with the 79.4 million web pages bearing the term, most without any reference to a registered trademark affiliated to the term "Web 2.0".

So like 20 other people, we will head down to Rebel Country and the Cork Web 2.0 Conference. But we don't expect to find a nametag for Sandra Grayson at the event. She's the general counsel for CMP and the signatory of a written request for IT@Cork to cease using the term Web 2.0. That's a polite request, but one without claim to trademark or registered mark in the European Union. Actually, I doubt that an American organiser would honour such a cease-and-desist letter with a reply.

I'm not a trademark attorney so my opinion counts for nothing more than a little babbling on a blog. But I received threatening correspondence from Intel in 1993 when advertisements I designed for release in Germany contained the word "computer" circled in white chalk. We ignored that letter as well and kept on trading because Intel had not registered a European mark for either an open oval or an oval encircling text. I'm interested in how IT@Cork progresses this matter because most bloggers chattering about it think it's a PR stunt resting on a baseless claim for an unsecured American trademark.


Tom Raftery -- "O'Reilly trademarks Web 2.0 and sets lawyers on IT Cork"
Twenty Major's response.

Cory Doctorow weighs in.

x_ref26121

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451945169e200d83461cb9569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Web 2.0 Conference in Cork:

» Tim O'Reilly Reponds from IrishEyes
YOU CAN READ Tim O'Reilly's response to the raging storm kicked off in Ireland about the Web 2.0 service mark but if you're not inclined to give the issue any more oxygen, I want to add two corroborating comments. First, like many people, I got a work... [Read More]

Comments

Sigh.

It's not O'Reilly who are doing this, it's CMP. Tom made a mistake when he attributed it to ORA (who were only mentioned once, and then only as co-organisers of the Web 2.0 Conference) rather than CMP.

It'd be good if Tim was to publically scold CMP for this con attempt, but it's really nothing to do with ORA.

I know the letter came from CMP not ORA and that the conference facilitators at CMP lay claim to the trademark. The blogging world seems to think Tim O'Reilly has some clout in this area so that's why I reference the O'Reilly publications we use to explore the concept of Web 2.0 with students.

True. I did what I'd been complaining about nearly everybody else doing and hadn't read the piece properly. Sorry about that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment