Comments on: Oh Really, O’Reilly?

By: Kaijsa

Kaijsa — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:01:09 +0000

It never ceases to amaze me that corporations abuse intellectual property law so often. The O'Reilly name is already a trademark, so I can't see an additional benefit to owning the Web 2.0 "service" mark for the purposes of marketing. Just slapping O'Reilly on a conference name brings people in. I also have to interject that Al Gore didn't claim to invent the internet. The poor guy gets maligned so often and it's really unfair. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

By: kgs

kgs — Tue, 30 May 2006 15:26:08 +0000

Jon, that’s partly fair, but O’Reilly is still the house that Tim built. It will be interesting–and important–to see what he does on his return.

Yes, you’re correct that most of the aggressive behavior on this issue seems to emanate from CMP.

jbm, I almost referenced the “Foo Camp” episode from last year. It seemed yet another stage in O’Reilly’s development.

By: Jon Gorman

Jon Gorman — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:02:53 +0000

To be fair to Tim O’Reilly, everything I’ve read on the radar site indicates that he is not back yet. He left for a vacation over Memorial Day shortly before the crud hit the fan and was due back in town yesterday (Monday). It sounds like people haven’t been able to contact him. I can’t blame him for going off the grid. He might be a bit disappointed in those he left behind. I’d imagine today he’ll either do nothing and hope it blows over or post another response in the next day or two.

Also, it sounds like the one company that was doing the heavy-handed legal pushing wasn’t O’Reilly, but instead it was the company that runs the conference (CMP). Reading between the lines seems to show some diplomatic balancing act between O’Reilly, CMP, and the folks at Cork. Of course, they seem to be failing at the PR end. A hint to O’Reilly’s communications VP: don’t offer excuses, next time just say we’re sorry. Also say you’re taking measures to address the community concerns. Make clear you won’t go after eveyone who has the words Web 2.0 in the title.

By: jbm

jbm — Tue, 30 May 2006 13:52:17 +0000

O’Reilly pretty much jumped the shark for me when they decided they had milked the open source market for all that it was worth and started publishing Windows titles. They really seemed to turn a corner at that point and began expanding very rapidly. Where once they had been revered for publishing a limited number of well-written, well-focused titles they began publishing all manner of stuff and in my opinion diluted the brand. Plus I’ve always been bothered by their “open” schtick while doing things like hosting invite-only tech “camps” and outrageously expensive conferences. Which usually feature the same small clique of speakers and in-crowd members over and over again.

By: Kal

Kal — Tue, 30 May 2006 07:43:53 +0000

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 C&D 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 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

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 30 May 2006 01:32:09 +0000

O’Reilly was tainted for me after I saw what they did to Wil Wheaton’s book, as in, virtually nothing combined with poor and inaccurate promotion. I still think they can publish quality stuff, but I question their business practices and motivation.

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 30 May 2006 00:57:30 +0000

And I, neophyte that I am, have never seen the actual book, but it was used as an example (I think of proper AACR2 format) in my cataloging (err, Organization of Information) class, which makes me think of it familiarly, if not precisely fondly.

By: djfiander

djfiander — Tue, 30 May 2006 00:12:37 +0000

I think that mine was finally purged in the last move a year ago. But I still have the coffee cup.

By: kgs

kgs — Mon, 29 May 2006 21:29:18 +0000

I still have my copy, purely for sentimental reasons! I have filled boxes with outdated technology books, but this book has so many memories. It’s interesting to browse.

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Mon, 29 May 2006 19:26:49 +0000

Ah, The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog! I remember working at the Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver in the mid-1990s. People were dying to learn more about the Internet, and we about five books on the subject, most of them with titles like TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1. We sold piles of Krol's book. I think I may no longer have my copy.