CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)

CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
"Jared M. Spool" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 8 Jun 2006 08:55:44 -0300
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
Juan Lanus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Juan Lanus <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
This thread was born under the "Web 2.0 trademarked" label, a provoking name.
So we are discussing how awful looks to most the fact that a company
could register a common term as if it were its property.

Now Jared ads more info:
   O'Reilly has not trademarked "Web 2.0." They've only
   trademarked "The Web 2.0 Conference."

IMO it's still too general a term to be registrable, bacause it
doesn't contain any "O'Reilly" or such words that make it unique and
O'Reilly related. No matter what happened first.
It is different from the Syntagym, Coke, Pepsi, examples because all
these contain the proprietary word.
O'Reilly did it first and after, nobody else can do it. It's like that
company in the UK that reclaimed the property of the hyperlink a few
years ago.
When something is obvious it shouldn't be registrable.
Still, it's my opinion and not the law.

As of the Aspirin case, I have an idea that it turned to public domain
after the end of the 50 year protection period, now anybody can make
aspirin and call it aspirin.

The "floppy disk" example is more like the Web 2.0 one: it's too
general, almost a description. Should IBM have calleed it "Floppydisk"
(no space) maybe it would have been possible to keep it as a brand.
BTW, many years ago IBM was selling letters to those who used the term
"IBM" to name computers.

My opinion is that registering general description terms does no good
to nobody, as William pointed. Again, no matter if it was coined
before or after generalized usage.
--
Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Tip of the Day: Quote only what you need from earlier postings
     CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
              MODERATORS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
       SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ:  www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
    --------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2