It's funny. I know pretty much everyone in this bizarre thread by Tom Raftery, and can't actually believe my eyes as I read it. I wonder if, when we get all the other licensing issues worked out in the identity sphere, we'll find out Dick Hardt has trademarked Identity 2.0? (just joking, I think!)
Marc Canter called Cory Doctorow out yesterday. He said:Cory Doctorow is one of the leading critics of DRMs, DMCA, copyright laws and the status quo – which often pits lawyers vs us. Heâ€™s worked for the EFF for years and helped found the #1 blog – Boing Boing.
But heâ€™s also a close buddy of Tim Oâ€™Reilly and Rael Dornfest and helps create the Etech conference every year – which is the cornerstone of the Oâ€™Reilly Web 2.0 empire.
So Iâ€™ve gone be back and scanned BoingBoing over the last 36 hours – and guess what?
I canâ€™t find a statement from Cory on his good buddy Tim – suing Tom Raftery – who is now MY good buddy, since I did a podcast with him, met him in Dublin at a Web 2.0 event and will be going to Cork – in November to speak.
I take shit like this personally.
So this is a public all out to Cory â€œhey Cory – wassup dude? Which side are you on?â€
Cory has subsequently come out of the woodwork with as biased a piece on this Web 2.0 furore as I have seen outside of the Oâ€™Reilly blog.
At first glance the article seems even-handed, reasonable even, until you realise that Cory has only linked to two articles in his post: 1) the Oâ€™Reilly response and 2) John Battelleâ€™s response (John Battelle has a working relationship both with Cory and Oâ€™Reilly).
Then consider Coryâ€™s language, he says that the dispute has been resolved amicably and that Oâ€™Reillyâ€™shas granted the con[ference] permission to use â€œWeb 2.0â€³ in its name
Iâ€™m sorry, what? They have granted us permission to use the phrase Web 2.0 in our conference? Wow, that was really generous of them, NOT. Should we also apply to them for permission to use the word â€œconferenceâ€ in our conference title?
What if I trademarked the name Cory Doctorow here in Ireland. It wouldnâ€™t be that hard, there canâ€™t be that many Cory Doctorowâ€™s here. Then say I got my legal team to send threatening cease and desist letters to Cory Doctorow saying I had trademarked that name in Ireland and that he had better refrain from using the name in the US. Then say I finally relented, called off the legal dogs, and said â€œOk Cory, you can use the name Cory Doctorow – I will give you my permission to use itâ€. Would Cory feel I had been particularly generous to â€˜allowâ€™ him to use the name?
Of course not. Similarly, a trademark issued in the US has no jurisdiction whatsoever in Ireland. Oâ€™Reillyâ€™s have no trademark for the term â€œWeb 2.0â€³ in Ireland. Oâ€™Reillyâ€™s did not grant us permission to use the term – they had no authority over our use of the term in the first place.
Cory, if you are going to write a biased post thatâ€™s fine, everyone is entitled to that but you should really disclose your relationships with the parties you blog about (and link to the relevant posts rather than only linking to your friends).
UPDATE – Robert Hyndman has a fabulous post on the selfishness of trying to trade mark a term as generic as Web 2.0.