Tim O'Reilly posted a response to the Web 2.0 trademark debacle… where he expresses his discontent towards the whole issue, which is totally understandable.
Putting the trademark issue aside, I will say that am surprised that Mr. O'Reilly is surprised about how the “collective” reacted. The “collective intelligence” (or lack of intelligence) is a theme that is at the center of Web 2.0. The Web 2.0 “collective intelligence” is based on human factors, which also includes collective emotions (that is, hundreds or thousands of them, all at the same time) – and for better or worst, that is the beauty and power of the Web – the human nature. And we all know that when emotions get in the way, well, intelligence is affected :-)
Back to the trademark issue, what made me react negatively to this whole situation was the fact that the idea of openness and collective effort was ruined by "business" – I am not surprised by this, but I am disappointed – the “Web 2.0” terminology was created and promoted under the “open spirit of the Web”, to describe something not built by a single individual or company, but by an entire ecosystem over time (i.e. the evolution of the Web)… And that ecosystem had great
momentum, that evolution is something that takes years to reach. Yes, the term was coined (based on observations) by Mr. O'Reilly and company (or whomever) – but the behavior, mechanics and elements occurred as part of the evolution of the Web – and no one can own that. "Web 2.0" is a term that has been assimilated by our culture, then the term was “suddenly” trademarked, yes when used for events, but still, it would prevent others (they choose) from evangelizing this concept using a descriptive title for their "event". Obviously that is going to create sentiment in the open community. And there is nothing wrong with such sentiment…
Today I read such things as "the collective was not wise", or "99.99% aren't affected thus it is not relevant to them"… and I totally disagree with that – this issue transcend the legal aspects – that is why there are so many opinions floating around – some people did cross the line, there is always one or two of those people, but there also were many open/honest opinions. But once again we are reminded of how business takes precedence over everything else (i.e. the collective, freedom, in this case). Call me idealistic… Do no evil…
But, yes, the "Web 2.0" trademark owners have all the right to protect their mark… they got there first, good for them, life goes on…
At the end of the day, it is as David McCreath, Off the Hoof, puts it:
“It’s just the web. It evolves. It’s not a software package. It’s a network. Build the apps, build the sites, focus on the user, focus on making the web a better place to do business and to connect with other people and screw the buzz phrases.”
I am a believer and implementer of the "Web 2.0" concepts (plural), I write quite a bit about Web Services and SOA and Web 2.0 and mobile. And before I move onto more productive writing, I wanted to write this piece – this is my last entry on this Web 2.0 trademark debacle. Time to move on, hasta la vista Baby…
Also, see Jon Lebkowsky's Web 2.Argh.
ceo
[Attributions: Image Source, David McCreath, Off the Hoof]