Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:51:00 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Jun 5, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
> I've often thought that the basics of intellectual property law
> should be taught in schools to everyone. Understanding how
> trademarks, trade dress, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets
> work is really important to knowledge work. When people confuse
> them and misunderstand their applications, it just makes a mess.
I agree, trademark and copyright law should be better understood by
anyone working with intellectual property.
However with the term Web 2.0, I think O'Reilly is a bit late. You
don't introduce a trademark you wish to protect by making it a common
name first. Once a word or phrase becomes a common name, then it's no
longer afforded protection. That's how trademark law works.
There would be little legal protection for O'Reilly if someone
challenged them with another 'Web 2.0" named conference. Same goes
for the term AJAX. Adaptive Path has the same problem.
More likely, I would suspect O'Reilly will use a name like 'O'Reilly
Web 2.0 Conference'.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
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
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|