Chris Pirillo on the O'Reilly matter with "Web 2.0"

As has been stated by both Dave Winer and Jason Calacanis , Tim and his partners were 110% justified in protecting their conference brand. Anybody and everybody who holds a trademark on something profitiable (or, as is the case for O’Reilly, ungodly profitable) understands and supports the decision that was made - not necessarily in how it was handled, but certainly the reasoning behind it. I respect Tim’s personal and professional position in the matter, having a few not-quite-as-profitable brands of my own to protect. Anybody who’s ever owned a trademark [read: profitable brand] should wholly understand. That’s the kicker, underscored by Dave’s editorial: O’Reilly is NOT a non-profit organization.

As I said the other day, the biggest part of this has nothing to do with the law. O'Reilly and CMP have filed for a rademark, and they have all the legal rights they want to assert it. The question is - given the way PR now works, was it a good idea to have the lawyers charge out before they talked to PR? A few years ago, that would have been a stupid question. Now it's anything but, as Tim is rapidly finding out. O'Reilly has branded itself as a champion of open source, which means that this effort actually harmed their brand.

The rest of it - all the legal stuff? Utterly irrelevant. A "valuable mark" has little value after you step in it.