Web 2.0®: I’d like to commend the CMP attorneys for defending their “pending trademark” of the term Web 2.0®. Despite the obvious fact that I’m no a lawyer, here’s my take on it: Tim O’Reilly popularized the term and started a commercial venture with it two years ago. The corporate entity behind the term and conference clearly should be in control of where the term is used. In fact, I think anyone who uses the term Web 2.0® in any way should be sued by CMP and should be prepared to spend their kid’s college tuition defending themselves. I can’t applaud the CMP lawyers enough for their courageous efforts to discourage everyone from using the term Web 2.0®. I, for one, am happy to adhere to their demands.
Update: The defense begins. It’s the use of Web 2.0® in the title of a conference they argue is their property: “Just as O’Reilly couldn’t decide to launch a LinuxWorld conference,
other event producers can’t use “Web 2.0 Conference,” the name of our
event.” I agree. (However, does this mean O’Reilly is considering removing the word “Linux” from the titles of books it publishes?) I think consumers need to be protected from the misapplication of the “Web 2.0” term so, again, I consider the attorneys to be heroes here. I mean, if anyone could use the term Web 2.0® in a conference title, then people who go to those conferences might believe that Web 2.0® is something other than what one would learn by attending an official Web 2.0® conference. And (isn’t this obvious?) one can only imagine the mass confusion that would result if anyone could start defining what Web 2.0® is? No, I agree with the lawyers on this one: there should definitely be an official Web 2.0® conference at which the definition of exactly what Web 2.0® means can be determined and defended.