This link has been bookmarked by 20 people . It was first bookmarked on 07 Jun 2006, by Erik Stattin.
-
11 Nov 07
Adriana LukasO'Reilly's explanation - I personally buy it. very coherent and well argued position. Trademark makes sense but as with everything common sense is what's most needed in such cases. Well worth a read.
-
20 Dec 06
-
25 Aug 06
-
15 Aug 06
-
19 Jun 06
-
07 Jun 06
-
I don't believe that the arguments about prior use of the term, or about "genericization" have a legal -- or even a moral -- basis. No one was using the term "Web 2.0" with its current meaning before we launched the Web 2.0 conference in October 2004, and the subsequent widespread use of the term Web 2.0 to describe the phenomenon itself is outside the scope of the trademark. The trademark is only for events. Trademarks aren't like patents, where any prior art (theoretically) prevents registration. A trademark is for the continuous use of a brand in a specific field of commerce. In my conversations with CMP, they've made this point. One of their flagship conferences is called Software Development -- clearly words that have been used before the trademark was registered. They were able to obtain that trademark for a conference to prevent other companies from building copycat conferences based on their success.
-
-
05 Jun 06
-
04 Jun 06
-
31 May 06
-
Nancy WhiteIn one blog post and comments, a huge story about how we communicate (or not) online
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.