CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
Sender: "ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:51:00 -0500
Reply-To: Bill Abel <[log in to unmask]>
From: Bill Abel <[log in to unmask]>
X-cc: "William Hudson (ACM)" <[log in to unmask]>, "Jared M. Spool" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
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'.


           Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
     CHI-WEB: POSTINGS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
              MODERATORS: mailto:[log in to unmask]