It looks obvious

I guess this was what Steve Robel meant when he wrote this post. This also a good example why I strongly disagreed with him.

I don’t know how effective the damage control activities are going to be, however by nature damage control intend to minimize the effect of a damage. There is no special reason to love a company that saying “we suck” , and that is effectively what the O’Reilly people are saying, I much favor a company that isn’t.

I avoided in the morning’s post to discuss my opinion about the whole legal aspect of using a common name such as web 2.0 as a trade mark for conventions. I would only say that CMP has some merit because , as I wrote before, the term itself is a marketing slogan for the convention and not the other way around, as one might expected to be.

It is only interesting that such fierce defense on a trademark , shaky as it is, coming from the same people who advocate for open source code.