The attempt to trademark Web 2.0 (in reference to conferences) would be comical if it didn’t provide such a clear contrast between prevailing thoughts on content creation and online connection-forming. Web 2.0 is (in theory) about sharing, building on others’ work, creating connections, openness, etc. Trademarking the concept seems a bit like using extra salt to achieve an effective sodium-free diet.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
3 Comments
Does that mean its ok if I start a blog named “elearnspace?”
Hi Tom – sure, feel free to start a blog titled elearnspace, though I would encourage you to pursue a brand of greater value
.
I think the difference with the web 2.0 is that the term has entered popular culture…and many are using it as a means to define the attributes of a community. Those individuals who have created the hype (by linking and commenting) the concept of web 2.0 did so without knowing they were serving a trademarked brand. Had trademark been detailed clearly up front, it wouldn’t have the value it currently does.
I think it’s fine for someone to trademark and copyright their property…as long as it isn’t a function of co-creation and “end users” being kept in the dark about intentions of ownership. The other issue impacting the discussion is O’Reilly’s long history of supporting and encouraging openness. Many who have followed his “tune” are feeling betrayed.
A more equivalent example might be ‘blogging’ or to push the idea further ‘car’.
If the central issue is that ‘web 2.0 con’ is a proper noun with a specific referent, then, this is something that as Sarah from o’reilly net has now said should have been dealt with by a phone call.
It was the ‘cease and desist order’ and the corporate structure and mindset that that represents, that i think has people wondering what’s going on over there. That is not to say that i don’t think that cease and desist orders have there place. But in a community that values openness, an openness that you (o’reilly) is one of the leading proponents of, it seems to represent a closed corporate structure.