Wed 31 May 2006
The Web 2.0 conference service mark stupidity
Posted by Gary Cornell under Gary's Eclectic Thoughts—From The PublisherI won’t step deply into it (far too many people have stepped awfully deep into it that’s fur sur!) so I will simply say that I was pleased to notice that Apress’s IP lawyer Karen Frank (along with another noted IP lawyer, lonn Levy) were both quoted in Red Herring article today as essentially saying that anyone who thinks this is a valid “service mark” in May of 2006 when there are > 70,000,000 Google hits; thus clearly showing the (now) descriptive nature of the term, apparently need a quick refresher course in IP law. More precisely, here’s a telling excerpt from the Red Herring article :
“The fact that they may the first people to use it and it has caught on so much, I don’t think that’s going to do it,” added Karen S. Frank, a partner with Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin in San Francisco.
Trademarks are less thoroughly scrutinized than patents, Mr. Levy and Ms. Frank noted, so it’s possible the CMP application has slid through the USPTO without the analysis of someone familiar with the industry.
Though the trademark seems to be on the road to approval, both lawyers said it would be an easy target for cancellation or litigation.
Of course, given the cost of litigation in these United States, this silly trademark, like the silly patents that Tim so loves to rail against, would require someone with very deep pockets being interested enough to get it cancelled.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:02 am
Hmmm, I wonder is this some indication that maybe O’Reilly is trying to do an IPO? Not now, not this year, but maybe in a couple years?
Here are some of my IPO indicators: BTW all of the tidbits are not based on actual evidence that I have. Just things I have watched, heard, etc. So here is my DISCLAIMER: I have no freaken clue, ok?
1) The discussion between Gary and Tim revolved around statistics, and market share and Tim talked in terms that business people like. (Not saying who is right or wrong here)
2) Tim has cut many “non-profitable” books regardless if they are beneficial to the community. I have nothing against maximizing profit, but O’Reilly was different in the past in that they had odd books that served a market.
3) Tim has moved from low-level geeks to large sales books and probably chooses books on their future sales, and not whether a profit is generated.
4) Tim is pursuing trademarks! Are patents on the way? IP is what IPO underwriters like to see. Whether or not the IP is worth anything…
Nothing wrong with going for an IPO, just interesting….
June 1st, 2006 at 4:07 am
Whilst not having an opinion on Christian’s IPO theory - I have noticed some distinct changes in focus and behaviour from O’Reilly lately - including some of those Christian has noted.
Perhaps it is a side-effect of the avant garde becoming the establishment - O’Reilly have moved from their previous position as ‘cutting edge’ geek publishers into more mass market areas.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:18 am
Tim has said in the past that he would not go public (IPO). I was there once when he said it, I believe. But, perhaps, he’s changed his mind?
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 am
Band-Aid has millions of Google hits, as does Kleenex. Windows has 2.5 billion hits. Yet, all of these are trademarks.
Who needs the IP law refresher?
(It’s silly to use the popularity of a term as the basis of such an opinion.)
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Chris, my IP lawyer says if there are millions of uses where the term is used descriptively that would void the trademark even after it is issued, In this case we have zillions of descriptive uses of the term while the trademark was in the proicess of being issued, ergo she thinks the trademark shoudl never have been issued (But then I’m not a lawyer
….)
July 21st, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Oh,what a beautiful blog! I like it very much! I’m agreeable to your point of view!
my name is å应釜 I hope to make feiends with you !
October 26th, 2006 at 10:53 am
I felt good about this post. It confirmed for me some of the things I’ve been thinking about.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I don’t get it. If a trademark becomes popular it’s no longer in effect??? Why would anyone register a trademark under those conditions?
I’m sure that when the trademark was applied for there weren’t 70,000,000 hits on Google.
It seems to me that the people having an issue with this have an issue with trademark law in general and not O’Reilly (and their partners).
July 26th, 2007 at 8:18 am
I once received a 20-page OREILLY marketing brochure about a Web 2.0 conference. The word ’security’ was absolutely missing.
It’s funny how some folks still hold on to their umbilical cord.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Oh,what a beautiful blog! I like it very much! I’m agreeable to your point of view!