Trademarks vs Copyrights vs Patents
Continuing the conversation, Ian Betteridge writes (in a comment):
Marc, look into the history of trademark laws and you’ll find all the answers you need. Trademarks laws are designed to protect consumers, not to ensure a revenue stream for companies. They’re designed so that no one can make crappy vacuum cleaners and call them “Hoover” (except, Hoover themselves, of course
), thus fooling you out of money and incidentally protecting the company from damage to its reputation.
Copyright, on the other hand, is designed to benefit the creator of works by granting a limited-term exclusive license to the work to them. It’s completely different both in origin and in scope.
So let’s get back to the whole “Web 2.0 Conference” thing. O’Reilly/CMP have spent time and money building up the good name of the “Web 2.0 Conference”. People go to that conference because they know it’s well-run with interesting speakers and they’ll meet interesting people. Suppose someone comes along and just decides to create a conference called “Web 2.0 Conference London”. Because the names a similar, there might be an expectation from people that it’s an O’Reilly conference - but it turns out that it’s badly organised, badly executed, and has idiots talking at it. Now, the “Web 2.0 Conference” brand is damaged, and anyone who went along expecting something like the O’Reilly/CMP conference is going to be very unhappy.
That’s the difference. Trademarks aren’t about “owning a concept”, as many people have jumped into saying lately, but about ensuring that one company can’t pass off its product or service as that of another. People are confusing patents and copyright with trademarks, because they’re all types of intellectual property, without actually thinking things through and realising that they’re all different, and have different roles and functions.
No one sane - even in the anti-IP camp - thinks trademarks are a bad thing. You want that bottle with Coca-Cola on the label to be Coke and not SchmoCola made from ground up wombat shit, right?
UH - actually I’ll disagree. I have come up with ideas that someone else previously patented - and that’s why I don’t like patents. I have come up with creative expression which was a conglomerate of previously copyrighted materials (otherwise known as mashups or remixs) and I was told that I was breaking the copyright laws.
And I have come up with names and concepts - which were trademarked - so I couldn’t use them. To me its all the same - government trying to put some structure and control over something that should flow more freely in an open marketplace environment.
Lets go back to your ‘London con’ example. If the folks in London put on a shitty conference - which was called Web 2.0 something, then that doesn’t reflect badly on the term Web 2.0 - it reflects badly on the idiots who put on THAT show. As we’ve seen over and over again - shows like COMDEX, Demo, Agenda, TED, Syndicate, Digital Identitiy World, etc. have all been changing hands, management and structure recently. Conference attendes have to decide - almost on a yearly basis - which show is what, how well its put on and if its worth attending.
So that’s the way of the world and it is this exact point that the O’Reilly lawyers think they’re better than us.
“Ah hah - tricked you - we trademarked Web 2.0 - so NONE of you can use it - ‘cept us!”
Well tell that to the 80M hits in Google.
You know as well as I do (and certainly Cory does too) that the term Web 2.0 belongs to all of us. Period. And any more argument over its ownership just sinks O’Reilly into the pile of excrement where this conversation started from.
The term Web 2.0 is built on the backs of 1,000’s of entreprenuers who are creating it - as we speak. Web 2.0 means “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” So unless its not clear - THAT’s what we’re all complaining about - the nerve of O’Reilly to actually claim that they own the term.
That’s what we’re complaining about. They don’t own the term - regardless of what trademark application was filed and what Dale Dougherty thinks he thought up. Others were thinking the same thoughts then - as well. And just because some law protects O’Reilly - doesn’t make it right.
You state “O’Reilly/CMP have spent time and money building up the good name of the “Web 2.0 Conference” - well excuse me that’s not the case. Michael Arrington, Matt Mullenweg, Dan Farber, Mary Hodder, Dave Winer, Doc Searls, Phil Windley, Andy Baio, Robert Scoble, Kaliya Hamlin, Jeff Jarvis, Brian Dear, Steve Rubel, Tom Coates, Arnaud Leene, Seb Paquet, Alf Eaton, me - 1,000’s have spent the time and energy building up that term - not JUST O’Reilly. To say different insults us.
Why don’t you just admit the truth - that O’Reilly scammed us, that O’Reilly is in the business of coining terms, standing up on stage and pontificating about the term and then monetizing the term. Plain and simple. That’;s what O’Reilly builds - hype - not products. Their products are the shows and books - which are propagated by OUR products and services - which the aggregate make up Web 2.0. Truth and honesty are the Web 2.0 way and its time that O’Reilly and it’s supporters just come out and and be truthful.
But we’ll have to wait til Tim gets back from his vacation - for that.
UPDATE: Prior art of the term Web 2.0 - dating back to 1999 [via Ewan via Loic]
Marc, are you seriously arguing that you *should* be able to put “Coca-Cola” on a bottle and sell it? Because that’s what it looks like you’re arguing for.
“And I have come up with names and concepts - which were trademarked - so I couldn’t use them.”
I don’t know whether you sought legal advice on this, because if you did I’d ask for your money back. Concepts cannot be trademarked.
“Lets go back to your ‘London con’ example. If the folks in London put on a shitty conference - which was called Web 2.0 something, then that doesn’t reflect badly on the term Web 2.0…”
I deliberately said “Web 2.0 Conference” for a reason, Marc. it doesn’t mean shit as regards “Web 2.0″ as a concept, just as a duff Macworld doesn’t mean shit as regards Macs. But I digress…
“As we’ve seen over and over again - shows like COMDEX, Demo, Agenda, TED, Syndicate, Digital Identitiy World, etc. have all been changing hands, management and structure recently. Conference attendes have to decide - almost on a yearly basis - which show is what, how well its put on and if its worth attending.”
And imagine how much more difficult that choice becomes if anyone, anywhere, can put on a Comdex or Macworld or TED with no permission from the original organisers and no connection with them. It’s as if I suddenly decided to start posting comments on other people’s blogs from “Marc Canter” that made “Marc Canter” look like an idiot.
“The term Web 2.0 is built on the backs of 1,000’s of entreprenuers who are creating it - as we speak. Web 2.0 means “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” So unless its not clear - THAT’s what we’re all complaining about - the nerve of O’Reilly to actually claim that they own the term.”
And again, I say O’Reilly is making no such claim. It IS making a claim over the term “Web 2.0 Conference”, which is a brand that O’Reilly/CMP has worked on building. Now you can argue that the term “Web 2.0 Conference” is too generic, but that’s another argument - and not one that I can see you’re actually making much.
As a digression, I don’t think your phrase “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” captures the essence of Web 2.0. I think it’s more like “We’re all working together this time, until we get bought out by Google”. But that’s because I’m cynical about things.
“That’s what we’re complaining about. They don’t own the term - regardless of what trademark application was filed and what Dale Dougherty thinks he thought up.”
And again, I’ll state the point that you’re persistently ignoring in favour of heading off on a rant: O’Reilly does not “own the term” Web 2.0. It owns the conference name, and it will seek to protect it. It isn’t seeking to own Web 2.0 as a concept - and there’s no legal framework under which it could do so (it’s too nebulous to patent, and there’s no particular code to copyright).
“You state “O’Reilly/CMP have spent time and money building up the good name of the “Web 2.0 Conference” - well excuse me that’s not the case. Michael Arrington, Matt Mullenweg, Dan Farber, Mary Hodder, Dave Winer, Doc Searls, Phil Windley, Andy Baio, Robert Scoble, Kaliya Hamlin, Jeff Jarvis, Brian Dear, Steve Rubel, Tom Coates, Arnaud Leene, Seb Paquet, Alf Eaton, me - 1,000’s have spent the time and energy building up that term - not JUST O’Reilly. To say different insults us.”
Marc, I’m sorry, but I was unaware of the fact that all those people have in the past organised Web 2.0 Conference. I didn’t know that Doc Searls had booked venues, that Steve Rubel had arranged speakers, and that Robert Scoble had set up the booking system for attendees.
Oh, you mean they didn’t?
If what you’re actually saying is that all of those people have worked to create the buzz around the phrase “Web 2.0″ then that’s true. But it no more makes them responsible for the success of the Web 2.0 Conference than someone working at Apple is responsible for the success of Macworld.
“Why don’t you just admit the truth - that O’Reilly scammed us, that O’Reilly is in the business of coining terms, standing up on stage and pontificating about the term and then monetizing the term. Plain and simple.”
I have no idea what business O’Reilly is in. Neither have I ever had any communication with Tim O’Reilly, or any dealings with the company. I don’t think I’ve ever even bought one of their books. You, on the other hand, are pretty clear that you’re coming to the defence of a friend - and there’s something admirable in that. But you’re avoiding the issue, again and again, that’s at the heart of this: do you believe that trademarks are right, or do you believe that anyone should be able to make any old shit in a bottle and call it Coca-Cola?
Marc, are you seriously arguing that you *should* be able to put “Coca-Cola” on a bottle and sell it? Because that’s what it looks like you’re arguing for.
“And I have come up with names and concepts - which were trademarked - so I couldn’t use them.”
I don’t know whether you sought legal advice on this, because if you did I’d ask for your money back. Concepts cannot be trademarked.
“Lets go back to your ‘London con’ example. If the folks in London put on a shitty conference - which was called Web 2.0 something, then that doesn’t reflect badly on the term Web 2.0…”
I deliberately said “Web 2.0 Conference” for a reason, Marc. it doesn’t mean shit as regards “Web 2.0″ as a concept, just as a duff Macworld doesn’t mean shit as regards Macs. But I digress…
“As we’ve seen over and over again - shows like COMDEX, Demo, Agenda, TED, Syndicate, Digital Identitiy World, etc. have all been changing hands, management and structure recently. Conference attendes have to decide - almost on a yearly basis - which show is what, how well its put on and if its worth attending.”
And imagine how much more difficult that choice becomes if anyone, anywhere, can put on a Comdex or Macworld or TED with no permission from the original organisers and no connection with them. It’s as if I suddenly decided to start posting comments on other people’s blogs from “Marc Canter” that made “Marc Canter” look like an idiot.
“The term Web 2.0 is built on the backs of 1,000’s of entreprenuers who are creating it - as we speak. Web 2.0 means “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” So unless its not clear - THAT’s what we’re all complaining about - the nerve of O’Reilly to actually claim that they own the term.”
And again, I say O’Reilly is making no such claim. It IS making a claim over the term “Web 2.0 Conference”, which is a brand that O’Reilly/CMP has worked on building. Now you can argue that the term “Web 2.0 Conference” is too generic, but that’s another argument - and not one that I can see you’re actually making much.
As a digression, I don’t think your phrase “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” captures the essence of Web 2.0. I think it’s more like “We’re all working together this time, until we get bought out by Google”. But that’s because I’m cynical about things.
“That’s what we’re complaining about. They don’t own the term - regardless of what trademark application was filed and what Dale Dougherty thinks he thought up.”
And again, I’ll state the point that you’re persistently ignoring in favour of heading off on a rant: O’Reilly does not “own the term” Web 2.0. It owns the conference name, and it will seek to protect it. It isn’t seeking to own Web 2.0 as a concept - and there’s no legal framework under which it could do so (it’s too nebulous to patent, and there’s no particular code to copyright).
“You state “O’Reilly/CMP have spent time and money building up the good name of the “Web 2.0 Conference” - well excuse me that’s not the case. Michael Arrington, Matt Mullenweg, Dan Farber, Mary Hodder, Dave Winer, Doc Searls, Phil Windley, Andy Baio, Robert Scoble, Kaliya Hamlin, Jeff Jarvis, Brian Dear, Steve Rubel, Tom Coates, Arnaud Leene, Seb Paquet, Alf Eaton, me - 1,000’s have spent the time and energy building up that term - not JUST O’Reilly. To say different insults us.”
Marc, I’m sorry, but I was unaware of the fact that all those people have in the past organised Web 2.0 Conference. I didn’t know that Doc Searls had booked venues, that Steve Rubel had arranged speakers, and that Robert Scoble had set up the booking system for attendees.
Oh, you mean they didn’t?
If what you’re actually saying is that all of those people have worked to create the buzz around the phrase “Web 2.0″ then that’s true. But it no more makes them responsible for the success of the Web 2.0 Conference than someone working at Apple is responsible for the success of Macworld.
“Why don’t you just admit the truth - that O’Reilly scammed us, that O’Reilly is in the business of coining terms, standing up on stage and pontificating about the term and then monetizing the term. Plain and simple.”
I have no idea what business O’Reilly is in. Neither have I ever had any communication with Tim O’Reilly, or any dealings with the company. I don’t think I’ve ever even bought one of their books. You, on the other hand, are pretty clear that you’re coming to the defence of a friend - and there’s something admirable in that. But you’re avoiding the issue, again and again, that’s at the heart of this: do you believe that trademarks are right, or do you believe that anyone should be able to make any old shit in a bottle and call it Coca-Cola?
Marc, are you seriously arguing that you *should* be able to put “Coca-Cola” on a bottle and sell it? Because that’s what it looks like you’re arguing for.
“And I have come up with names and concepts - which were trademarked - so I couldn’t use them.”
I don’t know whether you sought legal advice on this, because if you did I’d ask for your money back. Concepts cannot be trademarked.
“Lets go back to your ‘London con’ example. If the folks in London put on a shitty conference - which was called Web 2.0 something, then that doesn’t reflect badly on the term Web 2.0…”
I deliberately said “Web 2.0 Conference” for a reason, Marc. it doesn’t mean shit as regards “Web 2.0″ as a concept, just as a duff Macworld doesn’t mean shit as regards Macs. But I digress…
“As we’ve seen over and over again - shows like COMDEX, Demo, Agenda, TED, Syndicate, Digital Identitiy World, etc. have all been changing hands, management and structure recently. Conference attendes have to decide - almost on a yearly basis - which show is what, how well its put on and if its worth attending.”
And imagine how much more difficult that choice becomes if anyone, anywhere, can put on a Comdex or Macworld or TED with no permission from the original organisers and no connection with them. It’s as if I suddenly decided to start posting comments on other people’s blogs from “Marc Canter” that made “Marc Canter” look like an idiot.
“The term Web 2.0 is built on the backs of 1,000’s of entreprenuers who are creating it - as we speak. Web 2.0 means “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” So unless its not clear - THAT’s what we’re all complaining about - the nerve of O’Reilly to actually claim that they own the term.”
And again, I say O’Reilly is making no such claim. It IS making a claim over the term “Web 2.0 Conference”, which is a brand that O’Reilly/CMP has worked on building. Now you can argue that the term “Web 2.0 Conference” is too generic, but that’s another argument - and not one that I can see you’re actually making much.
As a digression, I don’t think your phrase “we’re all working together this time, instead of the VCs driving us all towards an IPO!” captures the essence of Web 2.0. I think it’s more like “We’re all working together this time, until we get bought out by Google”. But that’s because I’m cynical about things.
“That’s what we’re complaining about. They don’t own the term - regardless of what trademark application was filed and what Dale Dougherty thinks he thought up.”
And again, I’ll state the point that you’re persistently ignoring in favour of heading off on a rant: O’Reilly does not “own the term” Web 2.0. It owns the conference name, and it will seek to protect it. It isn’t seeking to own Web 2.0 as a concept - and there’s no legal framework under which it could do so (it’s too nebulous to patent, and there’s no particular code to copyright).
“You state “O’Reilly/CMP have spent time and money building up the good name of the “Web 2.0 Conference” - well excuse me that’s not the case. Michael Arrington, Matt Mullenweg, Dan Farber, Mary Hodder, Dave Winer, Doc Searls, Phil Windley, Andy Baio, Robert Scoble, Kaliya Hamlin, Jeff Jarvis, Brian Dear, Steve Rubel, Tom Coates, Arnaud Leene, Seb Paquet, Alf Eaton, me - 1,000’s have spent the time and energy building up that term - not JUST O’Reilly. To say different insults us.”
Marc, I’m sorry, but I was unaware of the fact that all those people have in the past organised Web 2.0 Conference. I didn’t know that Doc Searls had booked venues, that Steve Rubel had arranged speakers, and that Robert Scoble had set up the booking system for attendees.
Oh, you mean they didn’t?
If what you’re actually saying is that all of those people have worked to create the buzz around the phrase “Web 2.0″ then that’s true. But it no more makes them responsible for the success of the Web 2.0 Conference than someone working at Apple is responsible for the success of Macworld.
“Why don’t you just admit the truth - that O’Reilly scammed us, that O’Reilly is in the business of coining terms, standing up on stage and pontificating about the term and then monetizing the term. Plain and simple.”
I have no idea what business O’Reilly is in. Neither have I ever had any communication with Tim O’Reilly, or any dealings with the company. I don’t think I’ve ever even bought one of their books. You, on the other hand, are pretty clear that you’re coming to the defence of a friend - and there’s something admirable in that. But you’re avoiding the issue, again and again, that’s at the heart of this: do you believe that trademarks are right, or do you believe that anyone should be able to make any old shit in a bottle and call it Coca-Cola?
looking for information and found it at this great site.
looking for information and found it at this great site.
looking for information and found it at this great site.
I love this site. Good work…
I love this site. Good work…
I love this site. Good work…