captsolo weblog

Clearly, this whole "Web 2.0" concept needs a bug-fix to get around legal incompatibilities with the open-source mindset. Time for "Web 2.0.1", methinks.

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 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

Interestingly, I submitted my above comments (exactly the same) both to John Battelle’s Searchblog (O'Reilly partner) and O’Reilly Radar. Neither site posted my comments. (Though O’Reilly Radar allowed vulgar postings that used the f-word). Wonder why…Perhaps a strong and valid argument is more threatening than profanity.

intrestingly,

really nice one

really nice blog.
deepu
1031 exchange

really nice blog.
deepu
1031 exchange

really nice and interesting blog

really nice and interesting blog