"I f#@%ing hate the asinine term "Web 2.0"... HATE IT!!"
Frickin' A. Something about that term, and the people who use it freely, just irritates the ass out of me.
All the web is abuzz with the news that O'Reilly has decided to trademark "Web 2.0" for their exclusive use for conferences and such. This has pissed off some people. Well, actually it's pissed off just about everybody. To be honest, I can't really blame them. This is a generic term that has no business what-so-ever being trademarked and, if it is approved, just goes to show how terribly f#@%ed up our trademark system is.
Don't tell anybody, but I am secretly hoping that O'Reilly gets the registration.
And why is that?
Let me tell you why...
I f#@%ing hate the asinine term "Web 2.0"... HATE IT!! I refuse to use it. And the quickest way to kill off this stupid shit is to piss everybody off so badly that they won't want to use it either. Having the trademark approved is the best thing that could possibly happen.
Every time I hear somebody mention "Web 2.0" I want to punch them in the face. It's one of those things that only has meaning if somebody is trying to sell you something... in reality, it has zero relevance to the ever-evolving web. It's like trying to draw a line in the sand to mark the tide. It doesn't work. The waves come in. The waves go out. Your line is slowly eaten away as the tide does whatever it's going to do.
Much like the internet.
When I started with the World Wide Web it was text only. About as extravagant as you could get to dress up your website was to add the "blink" tag. THAT was "Web 1.0". So you could say that "Web 2.0" was adding TABLES to the web. Or was Web 2.0 adding IMAGES to the web? Flash? Javascript? CSS? By my count, we're up to like "Web 27.2" now. Applying numbers is just plain stupid.
So let O'Reilly have it to sell their books and conferences. That's about all it's good for anyway.
Yeah, I don't even know what the hell "Web 2.0" MEANS. And actually, I've never even been the least interested to open another tab and Google it to find out what it means.
It seems a ridiculous idea, versioning the Web like Microsoft does their Windows operating system. To me, it's tantamount to people leaving those idiotic "Under Construction" graphics on their web sites. Of COURSE it's under construction...the whole WEB is under construction and constantly evolving. Therefore, slapping a version number on it is bloody retarded.
A rather cocky move, and from what a can see, utterly pointless. Theres always another term to be used.
Oh, and "web 2.0" reminds me of those free cds that say AOL 6.0. Which is not a compliment for the phrase web 2.0
Posted by James D. on May 26, 2006 | Reply
This is where I get to bask in the glow of an inner satisfaction; having never heard of Web 2.0 before, and thinking when Dave said "O'Reilly" he was talking about the talking head version.
Now I feel exceptionally good about myself! This is why I LOVE coming to Blogography!!
Well, on the topic of "Web 2.0", I'd have to say one thing that also bugs the crap out of me is the other term AJAX. I see that term thrown around for freaking EVERYTHING these days. Look at that page that uses JavaScript to make things appear! It must be AJAX! Given how much I hate that stupid term, it's not too difficult to determine how little I care for the term "Web 2.0" which always manages to find its way into any conversation concerning AJAX! Heck, if you're going to use buzz words, at least make them cool! How about "Thor" instead of "Web 2.0" or "Supercalafragalisticexpialadocious" instead of "AJAX?"
They've put a version number on the woubleyou woubleyou woubleyou?????
Nah, you're taking the piss. Surely?
I mean, as you say, if they are going to do something so completely ridiculous it has to be higher than 2.0??
I've never heard of heard of the expression and now that I have heard it, it doesn't made a difference, so I just don't get why they would bother??
Everyone has the right to protect his intellectual property. But it appears that O’Reilly may not have protected his. A genericized trademark is “a trademark or brand name which is often used as the colloquial description for a particular type of product or service as a result of widespread popular or cultural usage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
I have read that in America and other countries, for years, there have been numerous conferences and other events with “Web 2.0” in the name. http://blog.softtechvc.com/2006/05/the_web_20_lega.html
If this is true, then since O’Reilly and his company did not previously enforce their rights and send Cease & Desist letters to *those* conference organizers, it seems to me that “Web 2.0” has been allowed to become a genericized trademark. Hence, trademark rights may no longer be enforceable or at least it may be difficult for O’Reilly and crew to now legally enforce their rights. A long list of other genericized trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Also, see the very brief opinion of The Trademark Blog on this topic: http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2006/05/web_20_v_web_20.html
Posted by Kal on May 30, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for posting my comment. I TWICE tried to post a similar comment on John Battelle's SearchBlog (O'Reilly partner) and O'Reilly Radar but each time, those sites did NOT allow my comments to appear.
Posted by Kal on June 01, 2006 | Reply
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
PLEASE NOTE: My comment-spam protection requires JavaScript... if you have it turned off or are using a mobile device without JavaScript, commenting won't work. Sorry.
Entries Feed Comments Feed
Blogography Bits
|
|
Visit my Flickr Page Subscribe to my Mobile Feed
