Monday, May 29, 2006

Quasi Intellectual Saliva2.0

The web is oft fond of turning itself into some sort of intellectual pitched battleground - arguments arise and people twist them around like so many old crisp packets in the wind. As with so many (quasi)intellectual debates, it is so often a case of trying to push trees out of the way so you can get a better view of the woods. Tom Raftery, a friend of ours but not one I'd always agree with, has been caught up in just one such warzone and, Tom being Tom, he's standing his ground in spite of the fact he's just become a father for the second time and could well do without the hassle. The argument arose over IT@Cork's upcoming Web2.0 half-day conference. Our cartoon from two weeks back will give you an idea of what I think of web2.0 but that's beside the point. What's happened here is that people representing Tim O'Reilly, the man who originally coined the phrase, are claiming a trademark infringement. Now you can get all caught up in the legalese of it and you can glaze over it with so much sycophantic saliva but, at it's heart it's a very simple issue. Is Web2.0 the name of a product or service? The phrase was first coined, Tim O'Reilly tells us, at a brainstorming session with Medialive to come up with a name for a conference they were arranging at the time. The term was meant to describe a phenomenon that was taking hold across the web. By his own admission, the phrase took hold and became common parlance across the internet community. At no point during this did anyone assert any claim over the term. After all, how could they? Web2.0 isn't a product or a service, it's a descriptive term. Now they want the trademark but only with regards it's use for conferences, which is all a bit Kate and Edith if you ask me. If they wanted an exclusive claim on the term, they should have fought this battle a long time ago. But, no, it served them well for everyone to adopt it. However they now seem unwilling to accept that by doing so, they essentially gave the term away. Whoever coined the phrase The Celtic Tiger can hardly turn around now and claim it as a trademark. Has anyone thought of trademarking the word property as used in relation with expos(someone most have been the first to do it) - could be pretty lucrative. There's a story about John Gilligan that I think Tom should have taking note of - when faced with a tax demand from the revenue commisioner, Gilligan took a pen, scrawled a big Fuck Off across it and sent it back. It's about as reasonable a response as this thing deserves. Failing that, Twenty Major could be onto something.