Comments on: Web 2 Conference TM Issue: Tim Responds http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds Thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more. Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:17:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: After! http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15711 After! Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:05:05 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15711 <p>So - CMP is not properly protecting its supposed trademark because it hasn't sent C&D notices to these three. And until now CMP didn't let anyone know it had applied for a trademark.<a href="http://www.chat-sohbet.com" rel="nofollow">Sohbet</a><br /> </p> So – CMP is not properly protecting its supposed trademark because it hasn’t sent C&D notices to these three. And until now CMP didn’t let anyone know it had applied for a trademark.Sohbet

]]> By: Search Engines WEB http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15710 Search Engines WEB Tue, 30 May 2006 23:50:09 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15710 <p>How Specific and General is the Patent.</p> <p>Since Web 2.0 is very generic concept- would the patent cover <b>Web 2 or Web TWO or Web II or WWW 2.0 or even Web 3.0?</b></p> <p>There is always a concern about how far entities will go to protect an intellectual property concept - and how far reaching they <i>PERCEIVE</i> that concept to be.</p> <p>Take for example GOOGLE, it had gotten to the point of suggesting that they inherently own all "oogle" domains.</p> <p>But what new problems will arise now that it is becoming a "VERB"? (like XEROX has)</p> <p>ALSO, look at Yahoo using "My Web 2.0 BETA" as their title for <br /> myweb2.search.yahoo.com</p> How Specific and General is the Patent.

Since Web 2.0 is very generic concept- would the patent cover Web 2 or Web TWO or Web II or WWW 2.0 or even Web 3.0?

There is always a concern about how far entities will go to protect an intellectual property concept – and how far reaching they PERCEIVE that concept to be.

Take for example GOOGLE, it had gotten to the point of suggesting that they inherently own all “oogle” domains.

But what new problems will arise now that it is becoming a “VERB”? (like XEROX has)

ALSO, look at Yahoo using “My Web 2.0 BETA” as their title for
myweb2.search.yahoo.com

]]> By: David Jones http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15709 David Jones Tue, 30 May 2006 23:34:36 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15709 <p>Cory Doctorow spoke at a non-O'Reilly 'Web 2.0 Conference' in Brighton, UK, last year. Mesh, in Canada are holding a 'Web 2.0 Conference'. Enterprise Ireland has held a 'Web 2.0 Conference'.</p> <p>So - CMP is not properly protecting its supposed trademark because it hasn't sent C&D notices to these three. And until now CMP didn't let anyone know it had applied for a trademark.</p> <p>Great business practice.</p> Cory Doctorow spoke at a non-O’Reilly ‘Web 2.0 Conference’ in Brighton, UK, last year. Mesh, in Canada are holding a ‘Web 2.0 Conference’. Enterprise Ireland has held a ‘Web 2.0 Conference’.

So – CMP is not properly protecting its supposed trademark because it hasn’t sent C&D notices to these three. And until now CMP didn’t let anyone know it had applied for a trademark.

Great business practice.

]]> By: SorenG http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15708 SorenG Tue, 30 May 2006 23:19:39 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/web_2_conference_tm_issue_tim_responds.php#comment-15708 <p>I know he is unhappy with the bologosphere on this (and it must have been a difficult experience), but I wonder if they would have been willing to "work out a deal" had this not been brought to people's attention. </p> <p>It also seems very reasonable to me for the the group to post the letter. I am not sure why he wants an apology from them (that is what I got, anyhow). They did make it seem more like him than the larger company in question (and maybe that was not so good), but his staff should be on this, and if they OK a cease and desist letter, then he wants them to reach out to him personally . . . that is hard when they already chose to take the legal route. I think the group did the right thing (other bloggers may have over-reacted) and do not see them needing to apologize. Maybe some people in the blog world do, but what did you think, bloggers would choose the large corp with a slew of lawyers over the small non-profit? They tend to veer on the side of the underdog. </p> I know he is unhappy with the bologosphere on this (and it must have been a difficult experience), but I wonder if they would have been willing to “work out a deal” had this not been brought to people’s attention.

It also seems very reasonable to me for the the group to post the letter. I am not sure why he wants an apology from them (that is what I got, anyhow). They did make it seem more like him than the larger company in question (and maybe that was not so good), but his staff should be on this, and if they OK a cease and desist letter, then he wants them to reach out to him personally . . . that is hard when they already chose to take the legal route. I think the group did the right thing (other bloggers may have over-reacted) and do not see them needing to apologize. Maybe some people in the blog world do, but what did you think, bloggers would choose the large corp with a slew of lawyers over the small non-profit? They tend to veer on the side of the underdog.

]]>