I have lost all respect for O'Reilly
Before you continue, please read this, and this and finally this.
Because Peter Griffin never said it better, “This is bullshit!”
I can’t believe the stunt Tim O’Reilly is trying to pull here. Web 2.0 has been talked about all across the Internet. Guys like 37Signals, Flickr, Del.icio.us, fluxiom, and JadedPixel have all been doing it. One could even say it’s the in thing to do maybe even the next thing to do? Hmmm… so that’s why it’s called Web 2.0!
The term O’Reilly is trying to trademark is “Web 2.0” and I can’t help but think to myself “that’s fucking ridiculous!” That would be like someone trying to trademark Script.aculo.us or Ruby on Rails or Ajax and in the spirit of community and what Web 2.0 is all about, no one would ever do that! Sure, I get it. They want $$$. What better way then to jump on the latest bandwagon? Thing is, part of this whole Web 2.0 transition we’re in is that the users involved are probably the most loyal, dedicated, single minded community on the planet. Ya, they are probably even more children of the corn than even Apple users. Talk about barkin’ up the wrong tree. Oh my.
I’m sorry O’Reilly. You make good books but this has officially put you on my shit list. There is no way I can support a company who would even think about treating their customers this way. Just. Can’t. Do. It. Next time try and think about who buys your books first.
UPDATE 1: The O’Reilly blog Radar has posted an rticle about this.
UPDATE 2: In response to Ben Ramsey, I would like to add that maybe saying I have lost all respect is a little harsh. It’s more like I am just totally shocked a company that always looked like it had such a good comunity philosophy, really doesn’t.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “I have lost all respect for O'Reilly,” an entry on consumeroo by Travis Bell
- Published:
- 9am on 05/27/06
- Categories:
- Technology, Web
Does Web 2.0 Need a New Term?
The term “Web 2.0” is the marketing brainchild of O’Reilly Media. Yet, it has come to be associated with so many different facets of this “new” culture of the Internet we see emerging. I, like Ivo Jansch, believe that...
Posted on Ben Ramsey
Forget about web 2.0. It’s sooooo 2006. Go straight to Web 2.1.A™ .
In response to Ben Ramsey, like I said, thinking as a company I understand why O’Reilly has (or atleast filed for) the trademark but I think O’Reilly seems to be missing something, as do most companies these days—the fact that the Internet is a changing beast. Never in the history of the world have communites like the one we’re talking about here been able to reach so many people in such an effortless way.
I am not saying that O’Reilly could go out of business but rather before dishing out cease and dissist orders, maybe they should think of the existing communities around the term “Web 2.0”. These communities are all very loyal to what Web 2.0 is, and like me, surely feel a little dirty now that some big company has tried to break it up with the big guns—and unfortunately, probably win.
Maybe I misread, but it seemed to me that O’Reilly was only laying the smack-down on Web 2.0 where applied to conferences. Asinine? Sure, but not all-encompassing like some other companies.
I completely understand the concern for the community here, and I agree with that. However, the real issue is that O’Reilly (or CMP, or whoever) filed for the registration of the “Web 2.0” service mark back in 2003 before anyone had ever heard of the term. It was simply a business practice they were following when creating their conference. Now, I don’t know whether they’ve been officially granted the service mark yet, but I do know that, if they fail to protect it, they will lose their right to it—that’s just how the law works concerning trademarks.
Now, perhaps there’s a little reason for the communities surrounding Web 2.0 to get a little upset over this
- because it flies in the face of all the definitions they’ve been creating to describe Web 2.0 -but this shouldn’t affect them at all, since O’Reilly’s service mark specifically deals with the use of the term in conferences.