Actually, “Web 2.0” is not dead. Sadly.
It turns out that way back in 2003, when O’Reilly and CMP put together the first Web 2.0 Conference they actually filed for trademark status (yes, in 2003). Assuming they’re granted it’s use (which is a safe assumption), it will actually be a service mark, since the word mark describes a service, not a product …
Obviously, O’Reilly will now pursue legal action against anyone who tries to use “Web 2.0” in the title of a tradeshow or conference, and the rather nutty people who’ve been running around calling their javascripts and HTML “Web 2.0” applications are needlessly up in arms. If you’ve never seen a flame war, and are able to overlook the language used in one, feel free to read this post (and the ranting and raving insults that pass for comments) on the O’Reilly blog, where a bunch of confused people resort to insults and claim that O’Reilly isn’t living up to the “Web 2.0 ideals” (yes, several people actually wrote that).
Just to be clear: the trademark application specifically covers the use of WEB 2.0 only as it relates to “arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, exposistions and business conferences” ... and “organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology.” It does not prevent you from using Web 2.0 to describe any collection of technologies, nor the combination of HTML and Javascript with CSS and market-speak. It does not cover the use of Web 2.0 to describe a belief system, a faith, a religion, an attitude, or ideals. And it certainly doesn’t prevent you from using “Web 2.0” to describe your web-application startup company while lambasting O’Reilly for protecting their commercial interests.
I can only hope that this will make people think twice about abusing the phrase. I mean, seriously: Web 2.0 Ideals? Web 2.0 Industry? Web 2.0 Techonolgy? Web 2.0 is a meme with uncertain meaning … which is really rather ironic.
The bottom line here is what I’ve been saying all along: Web 2.0 doesn’t actually have any meaning (despite Tim O’Reilly’s attempt to give it some), because it’s just a marketing term invented for a conference about web development. The fact that a bunch of geeks latched onto it as a marketing phrase and are now upset that O’Reilly is defending their trademark shows how clever the term was in the first place, but also shows how viciously vituperative geeks can be, even when they have no stake in the matter.
Technology companies should take this example to heart: you want to be really careful about using your lawyers, even if it’s about profits, because there’s nothing the open source geek crowd hates more than involving lawyers in technology.
Similar Posts:
- None Found