Alternate title: Web 2.0 0wn3d!
“O’Reilly and CMP co-produce the Web 2.0 conference. “Web 2.0” was coined when we were brainstorming the concept for the first conference in 2003 …To protect the brand we’ve established with our two Web 2.0 Conferences, we’re taking steps to register “Web 2.0″ as our service mark, for conferences. It’s a pretty standard business practice.”
They’ve agreed to let it slide for this year, but they still “need to protect [their] Web 2.0 mark from unauthorized use in the context of conferences.”
Techno Pinoy writes: “I call this phase of the evolution “Web 2.1″â€”which is characterized by all the lawsuits, nuisance and otherwise, that have plagued the tech industry.” He goes on to cites a few other examples.
Or how about Web Sue-point-oh?
Here’s an official response by Tim O’Reilly himself.
Now we know what Web 2.0 “officially” means, after the hundreds of souls have tried to defined it with all types of buzzwords, not to mention its being a buzzword itself. A bubble of a joke that people have been poking at constantly, waiting for it to finally pop, as the its former incarnation once did in 1999.
Amidst the comedy, there is guilty pleasure in Web 2.0, even endearment. People now argue locking down the term Web 2.0 is totally out of sync with the spirit it has conveyed: power to the people, socialization, information on the go, usability aesthetics, speedy responses, and even funâ€”but weirdâ€”names!
But who should really be credited for the term? What of this 1999 article, Fragmented Future, which describes the aftermath of 1.0 and the “first glimmerings of Web 2.0 [that are] beginning to appear”?
Will O’Reilly have the last laugh? Some fact-checking must be in order.
Or does the term even matter? Cory Doctorow says, “I think being able to call the shots is more important than being able to own those calls.”