Tim O’Reilly responds to the IT@Cork Web 2.0 Conference fiasco/debacle/storm in a teacup/biggest thing in the Irish blogosphere ever
I used the word blogosphere. Tim O’Reilly has posted his response to the fiasco that saw the IT@Cork Web 2.0 conference get a cease and decist letter for using ‘web 2.0′ in their conference name. TCAL reported that here: IT@Cork get cease and decist for using Web 2.0 term for event.
The entire internet found out and every one was upset with O’Reilly (They make books, they don’t repair hotels badly.) Damien Mulley, a popular Irish blogger said that the reason everyone was so upset was because
It was family we got riled up for, not the web 2.0 name
But that’s just hilarious nonsense, all I can think of is bloggers sitting around in Sopranos fashion mumbling about respecting the family.
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
RSS 2.0
Yay, Lara Croft in Ireland!
Feshti's back and this time he's counting down the top 10 movie opening scenes of all time.
Is American opinion and culture crowding out all others?
Just before I fix it: I’m not much of a fan of the word blogosphere, but you managed to spell it wrong twice. Good fawlty towers reference though.
Comment by danger — May 30, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
Nerd!
Comment by xiel — May 30, 2006 @ 11:27 pm
Says the guy who just posted about O’Reilly Media, Web 2.0 and the blogosphere.
Comment by danger — May 30, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
“we’ve even had to send a cease-and-desist letter once, to a company that was publishing technical books with the picture of an animal on the cover.”
So if I want to publish a “technical” book with one of the 9 million genuses (geni?) that aren’t camels, I can’t? Nice.
He explains himself well, but it really underlines the fact that copyrights or trademarks like “I’m loving it” are cock.
Comment by Stranger — May 30, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
“I apologize to Tom for the unnecessary lawyer’s letter, and ask that he apologize to me for the way he stirred up the mob.”
All this Tom fella did was post up the angry letter he received from CMP, the “mob” he speaks of has a mind of its own, I don’t see how Tom owes anyone an apology. People became ticked off because the term “web 2.0″ was now a trademark, all tom did was tell people this.
“He [Tom Rafferty] did call CMP to talk to the lawyer who wrote the letter, but he never tried to contact me.”
He goes on to say :
“Yes, I really was out of touch till late Sunday night, houseboating on Lake Powell for a week with my family and some old friends. While I took my cellphone and left both my number and my daughter’s for people to contact me in an emergency, it turns out that Verizon is the only service that works on the lake (and even it is very spotty) and my phone is on T-mobile and hers on Sprint.”
So if Tom did try to contact him, how would he have known if is phone didn’t work.
“I’m not sure yet quite how to resolve the situation, and in any event, it’s not completely under my control. CMP, not O’Reilly, filed for the trademark, and we’re partners in the conference, so I can’t make a unilateral decision.”
Bit of a Pontius Pilot there isn’t it? Blaming CMP for the whole cock-up.
Leaving the fact that I know little of what Web 2.0 is. to me it is like one of these buzz terms like “touch base” and “face time” but this O’Reilly character did not coin it. As has been pointed out before, the term has been around since 1999. What is interesting is the article from that date containing the term Web 2.0 has disappeared.
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/383501-1.html
Don’t think Mr. Rafferty will be too happy with Mr. O’Reilly’s response.
Comment by squid — May 31, 2006 @ 12:05 am
Tim’s logic is a bit out of wack - Tom Raftery pretty much pointed out what happened, then the ‘mob’ acted on it. The distinction between CMP & O’Reilly - well what’s the big deal in the distinction if it’s CMP acting in partnership/under instructions from O’Reilly Media?
Comment by danger — May 31, 2006 @ 8:50 am
I am rubber you are glue. Seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup eh?
Comment by Simian — May 31, 2006 @ 9:22 am
It’s as simple as this: CMP are the ones with the service mark, they’re the ones who sent the C&D. Tom’s error was identifying O’Reilly as culprit rather than the real culprit, CMP. While putting the letter online was fine, laying this on ORA as incorrect and irresponsible. I and others replying to Tom’s posts said that putting this on ORA’s shoulders was bloody stupid, and this shows we were right. That said, how ORA handled it until Tim came back was, to say the least, farcical, and I personally think the service mark can’t be justified.
And it’s Raftery, not Rafferty.
Comment by Keith — May 31, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Tom Raftery has responded on his blog, updated the post above with the link.
Comment by danger — May 31, 2006 @ 1:20 pm