It is finally fair to comment on the whole Web 2.0 Cease and Desist controversy now that Oreilly has had a chance to respond. From his response:
neither CMP or O’Reilly is claiming the right to all use of the term Web 2.0, as some of the posters assert. We just want to keep other conference companies from putting on events that trade on the name and concept that we created.
The problem is that people did not realize when they adopted the language that O’Reilly helped create there would be a tax associated with it. It just doesn’t jive with how science or linguistics normally works. If he said that the O’Reilly way of web business was “this that and the other” and then wanted to tell people not to use the O’Reilly name in conference names - no one would have a problem with it. If Business 2.0 wanted people to not use the name business 2.0 in a conference name, everyone would understand because they have an actual publication called Business 2.0.
But that’s not O’Reilly did. When he told people to start using the term web 2.0, it was not clear to any of us that O’Reilly was creating a protectable brand. After all, there was no company specifically called web 2.0 (like there is for Business 2.0) and no products called web 2.0. By not making it clear to his audience that he was creating a brand, O’Reilly deceived us through intentional relevant omission. It has the same dirty feel to it as a submarine patent.
On the other hand, maybe it’s textbook way to launch a new brand. Have no products, publication or company but only a trademark / copyright registration for certain words and terms. Then try to get this secretly copyrighted language used by mainstream. Since there are no products or publications attached to it, far fewer people will have a problem with adopting it into their language. Once you have a critical mass, launch your products or publication. If this catches on, watch for science fiction writers to start copyrighting their terminology as they coin it.
Sure what O’Reilly did was legal. But it was dirty and the “Collective Intelligence” of the web disapproves of the tactic.
So what’s the solution? It’s simple. Stop using the term web 2.0. Start using the term Web 2.1 - it contains a security patch that protects you from C&D letters.
3 Responses to “Upgrade to Web 2.1 - It Contains a Necssary Patch”
Wait some hours before using the term “Web 2.1″, so I have enough time to protect it 
http://www.designlaw.org/ Web 2.1
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Upgrade to Web 2.1 - It Contains a Necssary Patch  He then suggests that Tom should apologize to him for “the way he stirred up the mob.” It’s that part where I disagree with Mr. O’Reilly. Tom Raftery posted facts and explained his side of the story. Where did he stir up the mob? Weak. […]