I appreciate the response to the question at issue. I don't, however, appreciate the condescension implied in the 'geez you guys, if only you'd done your research, you would have seen the light'. Many of us did do the research. I'm still very interested in the first line of that letter that was sent to Tom. I requested, through several channels, a clean, direct response from many o'reilly people. It seems only the New York Times has access to that information... not exactly comforting news for we mob.
I've always been an O'Reilly fan, have followed this issue, and waited for your return to hopefully clear it all up. I'm disappointed. The Web 2.0 Conference is (or was) worth millions and might (even-now) continue as such without an overly-broad reach to protect your buzz-mark.Convince CMP to withdraw any claim other than your actual conference title "Web 2.0 Conference." Any other claim is very weak and clearly offensive to many.O'Reilly has acknowledged making an uncharacteristic mistake; please try to show a little contrition. This is best done by avoiding 1.0 apologies, which only require you to state that you're sorry. Often, as we have seen here, this can fail miserably. Apology 2.0 is much more advanced and efficient, while providing enormous increases in apology acceptance. Apology 2.0 apologies are in the form of: I'm sorry. Note the period. A 2.0 apology is not followed by a demand for a like apology, and never takes the form (as Sara's did) of "were sorry, even though we have no need to be for the following reasons"Please step away from the buzz-mark.
I'm not saying that it's something you knowingly stepped into, but I'm just saying that there's a perfect opportunity to apologize. Between your other apologies, your defensive remarks, and your critiques of the mob mentality and the feces being slung around in the comments, I think you left that one very important apology out.
And finally (apologies for the long post), people are absolutely correct in asking where the trademark application is filed. If it is only filed in the US, then that should have been mentioned in the C&D, and the legal counsel should have merely asked IT@Cork to ensure that it was not used in/accessible from the US. Although that would have been practically difficult for IT@Cork, the trademark applicant was overstepping its legal rights to demand enforcement outside of the area of protection. Assuming that the trademark is applied for only in the US (which may not be the case), then it could certainly be seen to be unethical to imply that the trademark applicant holds more or greater rights than they actually have
O'reilly is being revealed for what it is, just another company out for profit. And frankly, I don't have a problem with that. It does seem kind of strange though that they push open source this and open source that, all the while criticizing Sun for not open-sourcing Java when they make millions from their closed-source books.
Again, I'm not saying that O'reilly should stop making money by selling books or protecting their business interests, but they should get off their high horse and stop looking down at people that try to make money.
dale - I've asked that question three times in this series of comments alone. I agree with many posters... i very much approve of people making money. All I want is clarity. I am a blogger and web/podcaster(albeit not a particuarly huge one) and I'm trying to get specific information before i post/talk about it. I've sent emails to o'reilly, posted comments here, even sent emails to him through other people... all asking that same question. What about a web 2.0 workshop? what about Jane's web 2.0 tutorial? Tim has said "no problem", and yet the UK application clearly says "education events - conference, tutorials and workshops." So, with the lack of response, i can only figure that it is true, and that we can't have a web 2.0 tutorial at the university without asking permission. The LEGAL document says this, and it's the one that will show up in court, not Tim's assurances in this series of comments.
Sir W. Do not make any apologies, madam. I only find myselfunable to repay the obligation. And yet, I have been trying my interestof late to serve you. Having learned, madam, that you had some demandsupon Government, I have, though unasked, been your solicitor there.
Welcome to the new home of all things Cole Stratton -- I'll be posting my live show info, pics galore, news items and random musings from time to time. Thanks to the folks at Squarespace for setting me up! Here's a pic of me as a tiny businessman. ALWAYS BUSINESS. 2b1af7f3a8
Couldn’t Load Comments
It looks like there was a technical problem. Try reconnecting or refreshing the page.