Well now that my self imposed, (aided by some friends from Adobe), hang-over from Wednesday night has subsided. I had thought about summing up what I thought where the key points at Adobe’s “The future of the Internet as an Applications Platform” talk.
Instead I thought I’d use it as a loose segue into my actual topic. Plus it would be far more ‘Friday’ to look a the current madness that surrounds the legal use of “Web 2.0” as a term.
Now I’m not talking about the next wave of applications delivered over the wire but about the fact that O’Reilly and CMP have upset a few people with the fact they are service marking the term “Web 2.0”, (I believe this is only in relation to the conference scene), and have subsequently sent a cease and desist to a “not-for-profit organization” IT@Cork to boot.
However it does make you think… I mean what would happen in Jesse James Garrett and the guys over at Adaptive path announced that they had service / trade marked “Ajax” as a term and you couldn’t use it (as far as I am aware they were indeed the originators of the word in its current interpretation).
Personally I’m not really fussed whether people wish to refer to what they think is a Web 2.0 solution by using the term “Web 2.0”. I mean I suspect the majority of people asked would invariably fail to give a concise description of that makes something “web 2.0-ey”, (cue a wikipedia look up); and no I’m not going to attempt either. Suffice it to say I just get exacerbated by the continuing trend in just copyright or patent anything that remains static for more than a millisecond in the webiverse these days. Still I suppose they have at least achieved one thing – They have indeed managed to monetise their web 2.0 offering – if only through litigation.
If you wish to see the flame comments as they happen check out Sarah Winge’s O’Reilly response (a potentially ironic name for the VP of Corporate communications :P)
Or Tom Raftery’s entry – plus comments…