Paul,

I'm confused about what you find so misguided about this. "Web 2.0" isn't a "core technology"--it's Tim's coinage for companies and business practices that are built around the concept of peer-production and open standards online. He invented the phrase--why shouldn't he trademark it? I have no idea of if Jessie James Garret trademarked (for consulting purposes) "AJAX", his own coinage for combining a suite of programming techniques to make web pages more interactive, but if he had would you have a problem with that, too?

Remember that the trademarks don't restrict all uses of the word, just uses for certain business applications that the coiner has plans to use himself. Tim's Web 2.0 Conference seems like a textbook application of this. I know you, of all people, know the value of protecting intellectual property rights. Can you explain further what mistake you think Tim is making here?

"[T]he best way to make yourself Web 2.0 is actually to expose your data in ways that let other people re-use it." -- O'Reilly, on his own blog, yesterday.

The O'Reilly mantra around web 2.0, Chris, has been 'let go of control and your data will be more valuable.' You can't get much more controlling and less 'web 2.0' than a C&D and an application for a government-granted monopoly on a term. So... sure, the move may be completely justifiable, but it doesn't play well with the values Tim has said he is espousing as central to the next wave of web business.

Aside from the philosophical issue, marks must be defended, well-defined, and controlled to be valid. Google suggests there have been about 65 million usages of 'web 2.0' since the term was coined in 2004, the vast, vast majority of which are not related to the conferences of the same name. Even if the mark ever was valid/non-generic at some point, there is no sane way in hell that web 2.0 has not suffered from genericide by now. So this looks a lot like a pretty clearcut case of a large company bullying a non-profit with an IP claim that would never have been granted if the USPTO weren't asleep at the wheel.

Ironically, the example O'Reilly's PR lackey used in the blog post (LinuxWorld) makes the point incredibly clear- no one in their sane mind would have trademarked 'Linux' as a name for a conference; they trademarked LinuxWorld. If O'Reilly had trademarked the non-generic 'Web2.0World' or something like that, no one would be complaining. [No one has complained about LinuxWorld, to the best of my knowledge, and the Linux community is even more sensitive than the Web 2.0 community...]

Trademark is a first use issue. Tim didn't coin the term Web 2.0 I believe a more accurate description is that he popularized it.

If it is true then Tim is very short sighted and needs to address it. I agree Web20World would be ok with me but not Web 2.0. Hell I have a podcast channel on iTunes titled Web 2.0. Will he try to sue me. In a court it will be found that Web 2.0 was used before he used it so the case doesn't look good. Plus the word is too generic to be service or trade marked. IMO

you comment from airplane is great... in fact today I'm meeting with Jerry Zucker the producer of airplane...

http://podtech.wordpress.com/2006/05/26/busy-may-podtechs-first-birthday-the-movie-the-podcaster/

Chris --

I stubbornly believe there is more here than meets the eyes, that Tim isn't as interwined with this nutty episode as some are alleging.

Nevertheless, O'Reilly worked hard to establish that Web 2.0 was a useful descriptor for a class of applications and services. It was always a monicker it helped originate and popularize, but there was never a sense that they maintained any sort of proprietary control over uses of the description in any non-O'Reilly context.

By surfacing and exercising control in this (narrow) way after not saying anything about usage before -- IT Ireland is not the first conference to use Web 2.0 in a conference description/title -- it is unsurprising that some people feel like they were inappropriately submarined on the issue.

An analogy might be O'Reilly popularizing the words "open source", and then claiming no-one else could title a conference with those words. It's partly the act, but it's also the incongruity of the action with O'Reilly's stated "open" approach to working with technology and technologists.

You are so busted. You used the phrase "off the grid," and brady used that in his post on King Tim's behalf about Web 2.0. They own the phrase "off the grid" what are you THINKING!!!

quick! TIme to register "Web 3.0"!!!!

I'm guessing that Thomas Hawk and Luis are still at school. They demonstrate that they don't understand what a trademark is, and clearly have some growing up to do.

Chris Anderson is correct: Web 2.0 Tim O'Reilly popularized the phrase Web 2.0, and is protecting a very profitable and valuable asset.

Which part of this don't you understand, Paul? You sound as if you're still in the denial stage.

I believe this is the letter to which you are referring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/traftery/153074441/

There are some interesting comments on Flickr as well.

O'Riley is so hated. Regardless of what the minions say.