Shame On You Tim O'Reilly
On January 18, 2008, Google informed me that they will no longer be hosting the WebGuild events. A Google representative said the decision was based on the fact that the name of our January 2008 event called "The Future of Web Applications" and the name of our web 2.0 conference called "Web 2.0 Conference & Expo" were not changed as requested by O'Reilly.
O'Reilly associates contacted Google and asked them to demand that WebGuild change the name of our events and conferences and to cease supporting the WebGuild. See the email below.
to Daya Baran
date Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 8:03 AM
subject Webguild and Google
signed-by google.com
Google will no longer be able to host the Webguild meetings. We need you to take our logo off your website as a sponsor since we will not be sponsoring your meetings moving forward. We also need you to take off our logo on your upcoming conference site as Google is not sponsoring that conference http://www.webguild.org
Thanks, ********* The WebGuild Conferences and Events provide the web community with the opportunity to learn about new developments in web technology. We believe that knowledge is not the domain of the privileged. Our events have been extremely successful in creating an open platform to share knowledge with the masses. This is contrary to O'Reilly's model which is based on withholding knowledge and gouging attendees, companies, and sponsors where the highest bidder wins shelf space. Do No Evil O'Reilly felt it was necessary to cut-off Google's support for WebGuild because he felt that without Google's support we would not have a venue to keep putting on high quality events at low costs. Thus, he would be able to continue gouging the industry. Furthermore, O'Reilly contacted speakers, sponsors, and bloggers and asked them to withdraw support for WebGuild Conferences and Events. O'Reilly was desperate to avert a repeat of the backlash when he sued an Irish non-profit for putting on a Web 2.0 conference. O'Reilly Sues Non-Profit Shame on You O'Reilly As a result of this, we have not had a venue for events for the past few months. Many of you have been asking when the next event will be. I am happy to announce that the events are back on track and we will be holding the next event on May 7, 2008. Labels: arrogant, Google, old boys, tim oreilly, web 2.0
The old boy's network has benefited from the O'Reilly platform by publishing books through his company and by speaking at his conferences and hence, positioning themselves as experts in their respective fields. Many such experts have landed at Google. O'Reilly contacted these old-timers and asked them to demand that WebGuild change the name of our event and conference and to cease supporting WebGuild. Once such individual is Dewitt Clinton, who joined Google in 2006. This arrogant individual threatened to cancel the January event on 200 people if I did not change the name immediately. I did not budge. The harassment continued. I was flooded with emails and phone calls demanding I change the name. Finally, they became condescending, arrogant, unprofessional, and appalling. I emailed Larry Page, Serge Brin, and Eric Schmidt about this issue. I also told them that the WebGuild has been a big supporter of Google and its products since 2001 and we represent the community that are early adopters of Google products and contributes to Google's revenue engine. I never received a response. Google has also hired several hundred employees from the WebGuild events they hosted saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions.
Web 2.0 is about community, openness, and the free flow of information. O'Reilly's model is centered on limiting access to knowledge and creating dependencies for profit. It is a Web 2.0 Conference, however, not everyone can attend. You have to be exclusive enough to be invited to the conference which is about common technologies and for that privilege, you have to pay a king's ransom to get information that is freely available. O'Reilly sued ITCork, an Irish organization for holding a Web 2.0 event (see here and here). His attempt to extract his pound of flesh backfired so badly that he is resorting to questionable tactics to avoid a similar backlash.
O'Reilly even claims that he coined the term "Web 2.0". The term was coined two years earlier by Joe Firmage, CEO, ManyOne Networks. Web 2.0 is a term used to refer to the web as a platform to develop applications. The term "web 2.0" is in the public domain, however, O'Reilly has attempted to trademark it to retain exclusive use of it and prevent others from using it. Paul Graham has a great post about the term Web 2.0 and his run-in with O'Reilly.
Presently, O'Reilly is promoting keynote speaker Saul Griffith calling him a "genius" and "a scientist and engineering polymath" without disclosing the fact that he is his son-in-law. When I met him, I cordially introduced myself, however, O'Reilly was a despicable individual. He is a dinosaur whose time has past.
posted by Daya Baran at 8:40 AM
58 Comments:
Making the Web 2.0 conference an exclusive ordeal could not be further from what Web 2.0 is all about. Empowering the community. I used to admire Tim as a champion for the little guy, but we all see now all he ever cared about is money. Add another soul to the dung heap of inhumanity.
Seems google took the action here -- they had a choice too.
Oreilly is disguisting. his web2.0 conference sucked. i figured he is doing the same thing over and over simply to make a buck. he doesn't know web 2.0 - he invented it?
The first time I saw the web 2.0 conference by Web Guild, the first thought that hit my mind was that it was a rip off of Web 2.0 from O'reilly. In fact I remember the first time they started advertising it there was a lot of confusion on if this was a separate conference of O'reilly's. I think the reason why O'reilly reacted the way they did was because of the confusion and how closely the conferences resembled each other. It would have been better if Web Guild would have taken a different name for the conference. It would be the same if someone would come out with a conference called CES, with the acronym actually spelling out Consumer Electronics Show.
Call your conference Web 2.01. Problem solved.
Web 2.0 is dead.
Tim O is a joker.
Shame on google. I have been to many webguild events and they are excellent and on target. they made google look good when everyone thought google was evil. make it up to them.
Boo! O'Reilly is also hitting any outfit doing Social Media and Community workshops.
Sorry Tim, but you certainly aren't the only game in town. The WeLL, CompuServe, AOL and others were "getting" community long before you decided to hop on the bandwagon for $
I fully support the Web Guild's actions. I agree with the statement by one of the posters, to move on from Web 2.0. Perhaps Web Guild can be even more forward thinking and just move on to Web 2.5 or Web 3.0 even.
Whatever, I love the Silicon Valley support and the Web 2.0 conference this year (2008). We already know that the rest of the country is jealous of the Silicon Valley for the innovative people. Let's get them!
Signed a local!
I went to Web2.0 last year and found it to be overly male dominated, so I agree with your good ol'boy network comment.
Web2.0 is so last year, how about WebGuild going for Web3.0?
Sorry to hear about Google bowing to pressure, I thought they were more innovative than that.
Have you considered PlugandPLayTechcenter.com?
They have a great venue!!
you deserve it.. charging $40 for events and have other people pitch their shit... what value do you bring to the world?
Web 2.0 is all about giving up control. Tim obviously does not get that so how could he have invented it? Tim, it is you can Bill Gates now. Google IS Evil.
This post has been removed by the author.
Given that Tim O'Reilly invented the Internet, single-handedly spawned Web 2.0, and is about to announce the creation of the Semantic Interweb, I'd say we show the man some respect!
I'm sure Google has done some important stuff too - escapes me at the moment.
Allah be praised.
Beside turning your beef with Google’s corporate policy into an unfounded personal attack, anyone who knows Dewitt Clinton will find your comments unfounded. Dewitt goes out of his way to help people and the community and is one of the nicest people around. As for the names of your events, well, they look pretty confusing to me. If you don't like trademark law, call your senator. O'Reilly invested a lot of money and energy into their commercial properties and deserve the right to protect them. Just because you are a non-profit doesn't make you right.
Fascinating how your blame O'Reilly for your failure to do your homework prior to launching an event with a brand that steps on their brand. This is a simple trademark issue in which you failed to come up with a unique name for your event.
I wonder how you would have reacted had O'Reilly copied the name of one of your events for their event. You probably would have issued a Cease and Desist order via your lawyers.
You screwed up. Time to chill out. Find a new name. Move on... professionally.
Tim O'Reilly did not invent the internet. He wishes he did. Tim Berners-Lee and others might have something to say about that.
Shame on YOU Webguild! O'Reilly has worked hard to build his brand and when I saw your conference I too was fooled for a second into thinking it was an O'Reilly conference. That's the definition of infringement, if people are confused.
CMP applied for the mark in 2003 and they have been awarded the mark. The whole point of trademark is if one person owns it, another person cannot use it. Hard to believe you don't understand this point, so I believe you are being disingenuous.
If a company doesn't protect their mark, they can lose it, so O'Reilly has to enforce their mark. If Google doesn't take down infringing marks, they themselves can be sued.
Trademark and copyright are two different things, so you might want to brush up on your skill set there as well. Being free with the information you provide and sharing your recipes with the world is quite a different thing from using someone else's brand to promote your own thing.
Google is doing the right thing in this case, and you need a lesson in basic business. The real cheater here is you, trying to trade off of the brand equity someone else built up though years of hard work.
I checked out this Dewitt's site and he has dark, weird figures on it and he talks about hate.
Web 2.0 is descriptive of a subject matter. Web 2.0 is not the property of any one person.
There is no trademark or brand infringement on the part of WebGuild because O'Reilly does not own a trademark on Web 2.0. Many people have held Web 2.0 events. It is within their right to. O'Reilly has filed for a trademark but it has not been granted yet. It has not achieved incontestability so anyone can contest it.
I agree, charge $40 and deliver nothing. I attended a couple of your sessions and gained nothing.
You should have change the name of the conference, it was o'reilly trade mark. You became hard headed and Google booted you out. You got what you deserve Webguild. I hope you are not censoring comments on this blog
Get your facts right anonymous. O'reilly does not own the trademark. I guess he managed to convince enough people like you that he does. I've attended many Webguild events and found them to be more value than most events and cheaper. Besides, if you think webguild gave you no value then I guess google must not have either.
$40 that is nothing. O'Reilly charges $2800 and delivers ZERO. you must be one of those types that blows the company's money on $2800 conferences and can't pay $40 from your pocket.
Daya, this is an unfortunate and non elegant response to this situation. I too had a conflict of interest in being very responsive and supportive of the Web Guild's efforts over the past several years and also being an active speaker of the O'Reilly event. I sent several emails explaining the name of the Web Guild event was confusing, in fact it was the reason I did not speak at your event - not to support O'Reilly, but to avoid confusing anyone by speaking at both events which both contained "2.0" and "Expo".
My emails and I believe O'Reilly's emails were asking you to change the name from EXPO to something else - not to try and simply claim the term "2.0". When two event names are exactly the same, some confusion arises. Just as you would not release a book or movie with the same title as another, you need to think about the motivation for Google to take action as they did - you are in a professional business and when there is industry confusion, you need to either negotiate or comply. The first time I saw your email newsletter, I was confused and thought it was a separate session or component of the Web 2.0 Expo held earlier in the year.
I hope to continue to support Web Guild events, and believe you and your work are much appreciated by the community. Please take a step back and think about this situation in perspective and I believe you will see Google did what they felt they had to. You were asked to change the name of your event due to industry confusion and you did not comply.
Daya:
Don't get hung up on silly things.
The "expiry date" on Web 2.0 was 2006 anyway. Focus on the value you can bring to the table for attendees.
Yes, Tim O is in it to make money.
So are you and I. Any allusion to the contrary is simply disingenuous. His actions are no different than any other company defending their turf using trademarks, patents etc.
Now hurry and start planning for Web 4.0 conference. ( You guessed it - Tim O owns 3.0. Ofcourse you will need to think what that might mean. i hope you get my point.
Take a deep breath and have a good day.
i have to agree with Google's decision. The name Web 2.0 Conference & Expo is the O'Reilly event and for the WebGuild to just take than name adn ignore the market confusion it is creating is wrong. Also, your steadfast refusal to make any kind of adjustment is puzzling as this has not gone over well with one of your most highly regarded sponsors. I hope you are able to work things out amicably with Google & O'Reilly in the future.
To kgoto - you are speaking at oreilly because Daya gave you the chance. He put you on the map. Before that nobody knew you were. Before WebGuild i had never heard of you after that you start showing up everywhere even at oreilly. What are they paying you. Get your facts right.
I had a friend who worked for Oreilly and it was at best an ill organization rampant with politics and ego. Does that surprise you if they are deluded to think they invented web 2.0, tech publishing and even the internet.
I am surprised by google, the same company who came up with opensocial (BTW, I attended the webguild google event on opensocial).
I am curious what would google say, if facebook had threaten to claim the app idea on social networks?
Common google...shame on you, too!
Shame on You Tim O Reilly.. I think your head has become a 2.0 size with the hot air that you blow for every speaking engagement..
Timbo is a bimbo. I just realized I have been paying to hear his son in law when I went to etech... I want my money back.. Bring back Webguild. Peace to the earth, Free Tibet, Care for Darfur are all great mottos just as Google's do no evil.. Well what is the point if they do not follow this!!!
another plug for, PlugandPLayTechcenter.com Shobier and the team have their egos a lot closer to the ground than Tim and the Google gang. They run great events.
Talk to them and see if you can host your next meeting there.
Just choose a new name. Web 2.0 and FOWA aren't that great anyway. What's the big deal?
If you read up on the issue with the Irish conference promoter, O'Reilly was just taking issue with the use of "web 2.0" in association with a conference. Whether or not you like O'Reilly or his conference, you have to acknowledge trademark law and the confusing association of "Web 2.0" and a conference as evidenced by many comments here. I think your juvenile response is what lost you the sponsorship. If you're not creative or flexible enough to find another way to describe your conference's connection to this very broad trend, you desire the hassle and loss of sponsorship. (No one even likes the 2.0 moniker, handy as it is!) And BTW, sponsors associate themselves with events for POSITIVE pr, in case you hadn't figured that out already.
I think the attacks on Tim O'Reilly are really inappropriate and are not the issue here.
WebGuild started two conferences and chose names that exactly matched other well-known events. This is not about who owns the right to the term Web 2.0, or about Tim's personality; it is about deceptive marketing practices. It is hardly surprising the Google did not want to be associated with it.
Just a modest variation in the names of these events probably would have eliminated the issue.
Looks like WebGuild is in deep shit! I have been going for a few years now and membership was definitely at its peak when they did the events at Google. No Google will definitely mean far less membership.
It is probably a bad idea to get into a fight with two heavy weights when you are a light weight. You got to pick and choose your fights in life.
My goodness Web Guild, I wrote a comment this morning and I'm shocked to see it was censored (removed) from the thread. No profanity, no vulgarness. I simply took the opposing view by siding with Tim's organization. Wow... shame on WG.
The term "Web 2.0" is in public domain. It is impossible to trademark. That does not mean an application for trademark cannot be made. However, until the trademark is granted anyone is free to use it.
I do not think it was Web 2.0 was Tim's right to invent. Evolution happens for everything and just as it did for Web. Why don't someone start claiming Network 2.0 and 3.0.. and so forth.. It will get there...
And if Google don't see this, then let's tell Google by not using Google Search for few days or few hours.. I am sure they will care to understand.
Dear WG - Sorry to take Google's and Tim O's side on this but your inability to come up with a unique name suggests that maybe the big thinkers have left your dot org. IMO, the soul searching needs to be done on your end. On the other hand, Google's action is a bit surprising. Someone needs to tell that 800 pound gorilla that 1.) Tim O'Reilly can't steal their banana and 2.) Google is over-staffed if they have time for this nonsense.
My post from earlier today, taking exception to the WebGuild stance, was removed. So I've posted to
my blog. We'll see if WebGuild has the guts to let this link remain.
Your comment is there. What a pathetic attempt to get traffic for your site.
As with all conflicts, each side has valid arguments. But, name calling does not boost the value of the arguments given, but generally reduces the support from those who are neutral or can remain aloof enough to evaluate the claims. While I think both sides have valid claims, it would be a shame to see a great non-profit waste slim resources to defend an unnecessary trademark lawsuit.
In reading the posting, many questions came to mind.
First, who are the players on Google's side with regard to their authority over the sponsorship? Do they have managers to whom this issue could have been escalated?
Second, why was there no attempt to negotiate this conflict? As I will explain later in this blog entry.
Third, is "Web 2.0" a trade name or public? (While this is a serious business and cultural issue, it will only retain its relevance for another five or so years.) This question is the same one that Xerox, Apple, Google, and other great companies have had to defend. Consider saying, "May I have a Kleenex?" when meaning that you'll settle for any tissue of a similar nature. If "Web 2.0" is a trade name to which O'Reilly has a valid claim, then it is O'Reilly's fiduciary responsibility to protect it. "Web 2.0" as a trade name has limited shelf life, and the WebGuild is for the development of Web based technologies and business, whether version 1.0, 2.0 or future generations that are currently nameless.
BTW, I was one person who was openly confused by the copycat naming. Did it help or hinder one conference over the other? Marketing and attendance statistics will provide evidence for a winning claim.
WebGuild does not claim 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 in its name, it is independent of a particular view of Browser enabling technologies. So what gives it the right to claim "Web 2.0" in a conference title, when O'Reilly has a USPTO issued trademark? Why not use something more appropriate like "Web 2.0++" to indicate the goal of the conference is to seek to advance the skills of Web 2.0 practitioners? Let's use some creativity to get out of a bind like this, not pure stubbornness.
Personally, I believe we should take back the Web 3.0 name from the Internet technologists behind the "Semantic Web", which is really an Internet infrastructure. Let's coin the term to mean a next generation, or better yet, dimension in the Browser GUI and server based information transfer via a Web site. I've written about this elsewhere and I believe that Web 3.0 should easily incorporate everything that is Web 2.0 along with the next step -- a shared community space that allow multiple people to share information real time with the server acting as a value-added intermediary. In a nutshell, think of user generated content and team generated content, without limiting your thinking to only virtual worlds. Consider adding MMO style functionality using only a Web browser (like Second Life does for the 3D paradigm) to such applications as Office Apps. FOr example, combine a Wiki and a white board with a target community and you have something that, in my mind, would qualify as Web 3.0 and be very, very cool.
Web 2.0 is already old news. Let's move on to the next step in the visualization paradigm -- Web 3.0!
So, as a wise man who survived a terrible beating once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Thinking with the creativity of this community, I think we can.
Having attended a few Web Guild events, and having read the blog--I think Google probably had some other reasons. The blog is slipshod and often riddled with mistakes -- big and small.
Moreover, the support of "animal" causes seemed to be both hypocritical and misplaced--East Palo Alto has some human beings that could use some help.
All to say, it couldn't happen to a nicer group. If WebGuild is so hot, it doesn't need Google. You brag about the attendance--I think that was as much about the fact that it was AT Google as it was about anything great that WebGuild did.
Stop crying. Your personal attacks make you sound like a 14 year old girl. Are your conferences as terrible as your blog?
looks like oreilly is sweating over this. the CMP contract may get pulled and they are going pay big for this screw up
Agreed Webguild is forward thinking. They have done so much for the local community. Is dewitt still at google?
This is disgusting, never thought Tim or his team would stoop so low, I guess Tim’s team & their partners (CMP Tech) are completely blinded now, in their dream of becoming megalomaniacs. Some day better sense will prevail - B T
Boss, Why are you guys fighting. Web itself is a forward looking industry. Who used what and whom one confused is not the matter! I guess both O-reilly as well as webguild are right in their places. The reasons that the two hosts are different makes the event unique for each one of them.
Both of them have their own strengths and own weaknesses. Both have their own market audience. So if O'reilly owns trademark then it should be straight for him to sue webguild. and if Webguild thinks without google they can survive they should. Just to remind that all of us need each other to survive. Let us leave our successors get some great IP history and not all this fight blogs. take a step back both of you and merge together to deliver this industry a best of the best information. then go home and share your profits. Do not comment on each other as it will further spoil relation and shows weak-minded businessman in you.
Peace begins with a smile..
The irony is that WebGuild was the BIGGEST Google supporter. I think Google is too full of it that they can't see their own fanbase anymore.
And the Web2.0 conference (O'Reilly) sucked. More crap, same speakers.
Because of this post, I am thinking of NOT renewing my WebGuild membership, because:
1. It sounds immature AND is poorly written, and
2. It feels that something has been omitted.
3. It fails to acknowledge that the names of the 2 conferences are VERY SIMILAR, something that was noted outside of this blog months ago.
HULLO, WEBGUILD?
If Tim O's biggest contribution is to add "2.0" to "web" and wants to protect that, I have lost all respect for him. As a business person he should have known better than he can't protect anything that generic for a conference name. I think he made a mistake naming his conference web 2.0 (which was pretty lame) and can't admit to it. He can't have his cake and eat it. He wants both a name that is recognizable (generic) and he wants to get protection for using it. Give me a break, Tim. And shame on you google. So disappointed!!!
Shame On Google. Your conduct is disgraceful. Google has a bigger responsibility to the tech community and to the public at large. We are your backbone. We are your customer. We patronize your product. We allow you to serve us. You monetize that to the hilt. Have you considered doing anything for the community besides for PR purposes.
I can't believe they would be so short sighted! WebGuild was a huge asset not only for early adopters and fans of Google's products but for their recruiting efforts too. I had the opportunity to meet many amazing people and they loved WebGuild and felt like it was a great event for Google to support. WebGuild is the best networking and products event in the Bay Area!
This is really unfair to a Silicon Valley institution such as Webguild. Daya, trou de cul, and his staff have done so much for the community. Why single him out?
This is totally ridiculous! So much for Google's "do no harm" philosophy.
The event wasn't even called what O'Reily calls his event: "Web 2.0 Expo". It was called "WebGuild Web 2.0 Conference and Expo". As any lawyer will tell you, there is a big enough difference there.
And since when did that O'Reily, get the right to claim the name "Web 2.0" as his own? It's public domain as it was being used WAY before he decided to use it for his bloated, over-priced event.
This is so outrageous that I've created a petition that I'd like to ask everyone to sign: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/googleban. If Google knows how much harm they are doing, if they know how serious we are, then they will reverse their decision.
Sign the petition today and I'll send it to Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt when we've collected enough.
Google, all we ask is that you do no harm!
Actually O'Reilly carson took the name from an event that Bill Gates had put on called "The Future of Web Apps". Imagine how absurd would it be if Bill Gates tried to patent an event called "The Future of Web Apps" and prevented others from using it eg O'reilly carson. Besides they cannot trademark or patent it. It is the public domain.
I think one factual error needs to be cleared up here. WebGuild was not running *two* conferences with identical names as other conferences. The FOWA event was a simple evening panel session. It was just one of the regular monthly meetings of the WebGuild. It was not a conference. I'm sorry, but, anyone confusing that with the FOWA conference has only themselves to blame. That term is general enough that I am *certain* other organization have held similar evening events with the same title.
The original TechCrunch posting reported the naming conflicts for both as if they were both conferences that WebGuild was putting on. That was factually incorrect in the TechCrunch article and that fallacy continues to be propagated.
Having said that, I wish they had renamed the Web 2.0 conference in order to avoid this whole mess.
Webguild, you have a major grounds for legal action.
Don't forget: O'Reilly got his start by troffing Unix manpages and binding them, and selling them for big bucks. He's been selling others' good works for big bucks ever since. He is nothing but a marketeer.
Look at the recent Maker Faire. At $25/day, that thing has pretty much jumped the shark. (Did you see the huge O'Reilly selling corral taking up half an exhibit hall?? It was the single biggest thing there!)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home