All the web is abuzz with the news that O'Reilly has decided to trademark "Web 2.0" for their exclusive use for conferences and such. This has pissed off some people. Well, actually it's pissed off just about everybody. To be honest, I can't really blame them. This is a generic term that has no business what-so-ever being trademarked and, if it is approved, just goes to show how terribly f#@%ed up our trademark system is.
Don't tell anybody, but I am secretly hoping that O'Reilly gets the registration.
And why is that?
Let me tell you why...
I f#@%ing hate the asinine term "Web 2.0"... HATE IT!! I refuse to use it. And the quickest way to kill off this stupid shit is to piss everybody off so badly that they won't want to use it either. Having the trademark approved is the best thing that could possibly happen.
Every time I hear somebody mention "Web 2.0" I want to punch them in the face. It's one of those things that only has meaning if somebody is trying to sell you something... in reality, it has zero relevance to the ever-evolving web. It's like trying to draw a line in the sand to mark the tide. It doesn't work. The waves come in. The waves go out. Your line is slowly eaten away as the tide does whatever it's going to do.
Much like the internet.
So let O'Reilly have it to sell their books and conferences. That's about all it's good for anyway.
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
“I f#@%ing hate the asinine term “Web 2.0″… HATE IT!!”
Frickin’ A. Something about that term, and the people who use it freely, just irritates the ass out of me.
It’s corporate-speak and it makes no sense.
Yeah, I don’t even know what the hell “Web 2.0” MEANS. And actually, I’ve never even been the least interested to open another tab and Google it to find out what it means.
It seems a ridiculous idea, versioning the Web like Microsoft does their Windows operating system. To me, it’s tantamount to people leaving those idiotic “Under Construction” graphics on their web sites. Of COURSE it’s under construction…the whole WEB is under construction and constantly evolving. Therefore, slapping a version number on it is bloody retarded.
Damn, I was just going to trademark “Web 2.0”!
Do you think they know there’s a couple issues with the current release?
I did find some cool looking Photoshop books off the link you provided… hmmm…
Cadbury chocolate here in Oz attempted to trademark the colour purple. And I hate version numbers – trying to make what is essentially a work in progress sound all cool and new. Bite me
A rather cocky move, and from what a can see, utterly pointless. Theres always another term to be used.
Oh, and “web 2.0” reminds me of those free cds that say AOL 6.0. Which is not a compliment for the phrase web 2.0
This is where I get to bask in the glow of an inner satisfaction; having never heard of Web 2.0 before, and thinking when Dave said “O’Reilly” he was talking about the talking head version.
Now I feel exceptionally good about myself! This is why I LOVE coming to Blogography!!
You do know that Mikey 2.0 is reading your blog.
Web 2.0 from the people who brought you hyperbole 188.8.131.52.7!
They’re welcome to ALL the terms that I can’t define.
They’ve put a version number on the woubleyou woubleyou woubleyou?????
Nah, you’re taking the piss. Surely?
I mean, as you say, if they are going to do something so completely ridiculous it has to be higher than 2.0??
I’ve never heard of heard of the expression and now that I have heard it, it doesn’t made a difference, so I just don’t get why they would bother??
YES! I loathe the term. Better yet, punch them in the neck so they can never utter it again. 😉
I never before knew what that term was supposed to mean. Now that I do, I think the people who promote its use are even dumber than the term itself.
I have to agree. If anyone is counting Web 2.0 is so 1993.
Do you hate me for going to Web 2.0 last year?
If they get the trademark, all that will happen is that someone will declare “web 3.0” and we’ll all move on to being annoyed by the next meaningless, stupid, made-up web nonsense.
It gives the web bloggers something to talk about.
Phew! I’m just glad they aren’t trademarking my phrase: Web Part Deux
Everyone has the right to protect his intellectual property. But it appears that O’Reilly may not have protected his. A genericized trademark is “a trademark or brand name which is often used as the colloquial description for a particular type of product or service as a result of widespread popular or cultural usage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
I have read that in America and other countries, for years, there have been numerous conferences and other events with “Web 2.0” in the name. http://blog.softtechvc.com/2006/05/the_web_20_lega.html
If this is true, then since O’Reilly and his company did not previously enforce their rights and send Cease & Desist letters to *those* conference organizers, it seems to me that “Web 2.0” has been allowed to become a genericized trademark. Hence, trademark rights may no longer be enforceable or at least it may be difficult for O’Reilly and crew to now legally enforce their rights. A long list of other genericized trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Also, see the very brief opinion of The Trademark Blog on this topic: http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2006/05/web_20_v_web_20.html
Thanks for posting my comment. I TWICE tried to post a similar comment on John Battelle’s SearchBlog (O’Reilly partner) and O’Reilly Radar but each time, those sites did NOT allow my comments to appear.
Well, unless you are selling Viagara or being a jerk… I’m happy to publish your comments! 🙂