January 1, 2008

WebGuild Using Questionable Tactics To Promote Events

Michael Arrington

68 comments »

Are you going to the Web 2.0 Conference later this month? No, not the one put on by O’Reilly in San Francisco. I’m talking about the Web 2.0 Conference & Expo put on by WebGuild later this month.

Or do you plan on attending the popular Future of Web Apps Conference? Not the one put on multiple times per year by Carsonified. This is a different Future of Web Apps conference, also held by WebGuild.

Confused? So am I. I hadn’t heard much about WebGuild, but recently dozens of spam comments started appearing on TechCrunch lambasting us for not promoting WebGuild’s Web 2.0 Conference. Examples:

Why aren’t you guys covering what is important in Web 2.0 like the Web 2.0 Conference. They have an early bird that ends in days. Don’t you think that would be of interest to your reads that Apple store line up and CapGemini related crap.

As per your comment # 4, # 16 and # 18 - you keep saying that you are site that covers Web 2.0. How come you TC is not covering Web 2.0 Conference & Expo on Jan 29, 2008. As a reader this is more important to me than some of the crap I read. I went there last year and it was a blast http://www.webguild.org/meetings/web20/2008/

The last Web 2.0 Conference & Expo will take place on Jan 29, 2008. After that Web 2.0 will die. It will be no point going to Web 2.0 related conferences after that.

These comments are made by various names, but they all have one thing in common - the same IP address. And that IP address is also the same one used by WebGuild’s President, Daya Baran, when he leaves real comments on TechCrunch.

What’s Going On?

I emailed Tim O’Reilly and Ryan Carson to see if they knew about the events and what their position was. O’Reilly, anxious to avoid situation like this one, said he reached out to Baran to ask him to change the name but never heard back. Ryan Carson was unaware of the event, but was not happy to see the use of the brand his company has built up over the last few years.

I also spoke to Baran on the phone. He said that his conference names are descriptive of the content and perfectly valid. Any legal attempts by O’Reilly or Carson to stop him from using the names, he said, would be comparable to the RIAA suing people for copying music. In short, he was unapologetic, and he also claimed that he was unaware that O’Reilly tried to contact him.

Baran also denied that he left the spam comments. He says he has a number of interns and volunteers at this office, and they may be leaving the comments.

Is This Ok?

Putting legal issues aside, This is still not ok. O’Reilly and Carsonified took a lot of financial risk and time in building up their brands around their conferences. For someone else to come in, take the brand and put on their own conference around it is just not ethical. To compare this with people downloading music is a red herring. A better analogy would be a new band calling themselves U2 and selling CDs under that name. It just smells off.

In fact, attendee confusion is the biggest issue I have with the event. Someone new to the community may have heard about the Web 2.0 Conference or The Future Of Web Apps, click on one of the spam links and buy a ticket for an event they think is something else. I asked Baran if he thought some people might be confused by his conference names. His response was “I don’t know.”

The confusion issue is real. I actually first emailed Ryan Carson to ask him if he was putting on the Future of Web Apps conference in partnership with WebGuild. Given how immersed I am in this community, I’m pretty sure that if I was confused, others will be, too.

Apart from these issues, WebGuild seems like a legitimate organization. They hold monthly events with high profile speakers at Google and elsewhere. Baran claims they are a non-profit organization, and that he takes no salary from his position there.

So why wade into grey areas of trademark infringement and blog spamming? Run the business clean, and build your own brands and community. That’s my advice.

  • Sphere It

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Aaron

    I’m going to start a new blog about Web 2.0. It’s going to be called TechCrunch2. Since Web 2.0 is all about community, if Arrington doesn’t like it, he must hate freedom of speech. Muahahahaha!

    /satire

  2. Robert Scoble

    Absolutely NOT OK. I’m removing any trace of these guys from my Upcoming Event Calendar that I keep at http://upcoming.yahoo.com/user/138148/

  3. Prediction

    Ryan Carson will use this incident to squeeze out as much publicity for himself / his conference as humanly possible. This very comment should get the ball rolling…

  4. syed

    Even is the words he used to describe the conference names are descriptive of the content, he could reprase it in another way, not blatantly copy word by word

  5. Trae Dorn

    This is just ridiculous. I definitely wouldn’t patronize a conference that is run by these guys at all.

  6. Technicle

    I’m going to start a new blog about Web 3.0 (which presumably includes Web 2.0 and 1.0). It’s going to be called Technicle, whether anybody likes it or not. Would be interesting to see if Techcrunch is going to ban our “commentability” here… :-D

    /aaron.

  7. Michael Langford

    In general, I have great respect for Tim O’Reilly and his companies. Not in this issue though, and TechCrunch’s actions in this matter *also* deserve a critical eye.

    TechCrunch and O’Reilly need to drop this issue. Web 2.0 isn’t what the trademark registration http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/sho.....bs3rpf.2.2 says it is. The person who the company is named after, Tim O’Reilly, mentions the Web 2.0 as a concept. He does mention it was developed around conference planning, but he loses the moral high ground (and possible legal grounds) when he goes to define it as a general happening of our time, rather than an internal O’Reilly Conferences trademark.

    Tim O’Reilly uses the term outside the scope of the mark, actively defining large, important, oft discussed concepts of the modern internet, not a line of conferences his company puts out. He is quoted on Wikipedia doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0.

    Google knows to send you a nastygram when you say “I googled his profile on yahoo” or “I googled him in the database using our custom search engine that IBM installed”. The reason they do is they lose the mark if it becomes a general term for “search in a search tool” and doesn’t mean “search in Google’s search tool”. Xerox does this same thing, when they send you a letter or email asking you to say photocopy or copy, instead of “xeroxing” a piece of paper. Tim O’Reilly does something drastically opposed to this: He writes articles defining Web 2.0 as a moniker for what is happening in the web today. He lets Wikipedia leave his definition in the first paragraph of their article on the term. He *loves* the fact the term is going beyond a name of a conference, but he doesn’t get to have it both ways.

    Secondly, the term isn’t about a specific product of O’Reilly’s. For instance, the (excellent) book, “Programming Collective Intelligence: Building Smart Web 2.0 Applications” (http://snipurl.com/collectiveintbook) uses the term in it’s title. It is put out *by* the same company who supposedly has such a right and claim to Web 2.0 as a mark about conferences. That book is sitting on my desk here. It’s not about conferences. It’s about Web 2.0, the concept, and is not in any way connected to the conference.

    So please, put this other conference on your calendars. Credit O’Reilly on the developing the concept, and support him in being the “Original Conference” on the matter. But please stop being outraged that people are using the term, and people who do Web 2.0 want to meet and share ideas in a location about the term, holding their own conferences.

    Tim O’Reilly’s own conduct has let the horse out of the barn on this one. Please stop harassing people because they are doing the reasonable, and probably legal thing in using the very useful term that Tim O’Reilly made, to talk about the exact thing he defined the term to be.

    –Michael

  8. King

    this is bad but the speaker and sponser list is not bad at all.. looks like we will see a blog which covers new web 2.0 conferences…lol…

  9. Jon

    Buddy forgot to mask his IP before sending you comments under aliases… you would have thought somebody with his level of experience on online matters would have acted a little more intelligently. Honesty is the best approach, if not, at least use a different IP when pretending to be somebody else ;-)

    Jon

  10. Search◊ Engines Web

    There is essentially nothing really that wrong with what they are doing.

    The name Web 2.0 in itself is patronizing to Tim Berners-Lee and CERN who chose not to patent The Web. So others who use the Web 2.0 term in their businesses are essentially giving them a taste of their own medicine.

    The so-called Spam comments are perfectly justified.

    They are a result of frustration and a dire need to be recognized in what has just now become the #2 popular blog on Technorati - having both nationwide political and global business influence.

    There was an ethical obligation to highlight them. Many less popular topics were created during low news days - and this oversight force them to do this.

    This extreme popularity of TechCrunch in the tech community brings with it more responsibility to be fair and giving.

  11. Sean

    Smells fishy, I wouldn’t trust these guys (Webguild i.e.). Obviously they’re capitalizing on the brands built by O’Reilly & Carson. The President looks like a crook and his background is suspect too.

  12. Stropp

    Spam, blog or email, is never justified.

    Every day I waste my time going through it for legitimate comments, and every day I curse the mongrels who do the spamming.

    #9 - If you want to get your message out there, why don’t you BUY your adverstising instead of trying to get it for free.

  13. Gruuvie

    I think WebGuild is a facade used by this guy Daya to promote his shady web site gruuve, which again preys on Groove brand! Shame on this guy. Watch out everyone in the valley!

  14. Van Riper

    Disclaimer: I am not directly affiliated with the running of the WebGuild, but, I have attended quite a few of their events and have gotten to know Daya personally as a result.

    The times I have personally seen Daya promote WebGuild conferences he typically compares them to the more well known conferences pointing out that the goal of the WebGuild conferences is to give you much of the same kinds of content with high quality speakers at a significantly lower price point. So, he was clearly not trying to *confuse* people into believing his conferences are the other larger more established conferences. Plus, I have found them to deliver on this promise.

    Also, your example of one of the monthly WebGuild evening events that happened to have the same title as the Future of WebApps conference was not a fair jab at the WebGuild. I don’t think you really mean that any organization having monthly meetings are disallowed from using a generic expression like that as the topic/title for a meeting. If that were the case, I’m sure that I have been guilty of the same thing myself in the running of various user groups that I have led over the years too.

    Having said that, I do agree that there is potential for confusion and the information about the comments coming from Daya’s own IP address was particularly disturbing to hear about here.

  15. Ryan Carson

    I was pretty shocked when Mike emailed me about this. I don’t have any problems with people launching events that compete with ours - that would be ridiculous. What bothered me was the fact they were using the *exact* name of our conference.

    Of course we’re not going to try to trademark ‘The Future of’ but in such a small niche as ‘web apps’, it’s underhanded for these guys to be using our exact conference name.

    This is a good example of just plain old bad business. Why didn’t they launch their conference under a new name and work hard to build its credibility and respect (the good ol’ fashion honest way), instead of using brand confusion with our conference to garner interest?

  16. Peter

    I would go in court against them Ryan.

    Since you where the first one using this name it’s confusing and missleading.

    Good luck!

  17. Van Riper

    Ryan: Please take a good look at the WebGuild FOWA event. It is not a competing conference. It is the title being used for topic of the January meeting of the WebGuild. They have these evening membership meetings about once a month on various topics. FOWA happens to be the topic of the January 16th evening meeting.

    http://www.webguild.org/biogra.....b-apps.php

  18. diamondrings411.com

    Good article Ryan.
    I hope they go after them in court. It sucks when people try to hurt another company’s brand.

  19. Ryan

    It’s not like naming your band U2, because that’s actually not allowed. I spent time with musicians, many had to rename themselves once they started to go beyond the local bar scene because there was a band out there already using their name. This is more like naming your album The Joshua Tree when your band name is something other than U2, which is perfectly fine.

    Per Van Riper’s comment about this being such a generic title that no one should be upset over this, I have to say that the striking coincidence that Daya named his the same as an existing makes it seem intentional. And the intent to name your conference the same as another is bound to upset people because it reeks of deception.

    Even if we’re to believe that Daya didn’t intend to deceive, it should be a good business decision to do your due diligence and not name your conference the same as something that’s already running. You want to differentiate yourself as THE Web 2.0 conference for the latest and greatest in the industry, right?

    Anyway, it seems fishy and I certainly wouldn’t throw any money at it.

  20. Jack

    For my sins, I used to work in this sector and there are a lot of bad apples. For every Carsonified there is a World Trade Group etc (http://www.wtgevents.com) who routinely use dubious tactics to sell sponsorship and meetings packages, etc.

    Every one of the ‘also rans’ tries to position their event as the ‘must attend’ fixture for its relevant industry. If there’s a bit of confusion around the name thrown in too, this makes the job of the sales person much easier: “Good morning [prospect], I’m sure you’ll have heard of the Future of Web Apps event being put on later this month….”

    The glimmer of recognition that the prospect might have due to Carsonified’s work will help give this other event more credibility that it perhaps hasn’t yet earned.

  21. Gus

    Well done for flagging up this ethical abuse. Hopefully the embarassment factor will be massive and damaging.

  22. iHero

    Wow — it makes me feel real good that you all feel this way. This same thing happened to me — the iHero — and I could not get the guy to change the name of his new iHero company.

    Many Thanks,
    BT Slader

  23. Kevin

    my knowledge of the law is limited, but the phrase ‘web2.0 conference’ or part there of is not proprietary as far as i know…that’s like saying that ‘Internet conference’ is a proprietary name….or ‘RSS conference’ …

    so with regards to how legal it is..i don’t think it would hold any weight in court..if they held a conference with the name ‘Webguild Web 2.0 Conference’, how can that be trademark infringment? Web 2.0 is not registered by any one entity… and its a description of what will be in the conference…

    i agree though that the comments should not have been made….keep things clean…if some one doesnt want to post about something…its their choice…no need to badger them

  24. David

    Funny - I had gotten an unsolicited email from WebGuild in the past few days about my login(s) to their even websites, and I thought that was odd that I was being confirmed for a newsletter signup that I never initiated. Also, there were no unsubscribe link(s) in the email. Bad form.

    This guy is scum. He’s poaching names/emails off of sites like this for spamming.

    Honestly, do you think it makes sense to spam a CEO of an anti-spam company?

    Do you think I’m not going to block your emails for our 30+ million users? Idiot.

  25. Brandon Eley

    Wow, I am constantly surprised at how seemingly intelligent people have no regard for trademark or copyright at all. They think just because something is used on the Internet, it should be free for everyone. I think it’s just laziness added to the fact that maybe they couldn’t come up with a decent name themselves.

    I hope a lot of bloggers pick this up and discredit the WebGuild conferences until they change the names.

    And I sincerely hope Ryan and O’Reilly consider legal action. Even without a trademark, they could easily get an injunction stopping WebGuild from using the names. If there was not intent to deceive, the names would not be exactly the same (in both cases). That’s just too much of a coincidence.

    And just what does non-profit mean these days? Just that they have to spend all their money before years-end. They could still be taking substantial salaries and profiting nicely (personally) from the venture. It is no cop-out for breaking the law.

  26. Will McInnes

    i think the legal issues are distracting - whatever webguild claims, it is deceptive to the market of attendees and completely unfair to the organisers who have built their brands. Fortunately their behaviour in marketing their ripoff events will ensure they do not thrive. This kind of behaviour is deep seated and will cause them to continue to make other poor short sighted decisions and ultimately they will not thrive.

  27. caveman

    @6

    So your saying that your proposed web 3.0 conference will be backwards compatible?

  28. Humble Pie

    I tend to agree with #25…

    And I still think O’Reilly pulled a real dickhead move on IT@Cork. Any word on whether someone posted a successful challenge to “Rocktober” — I mean, “Web 2.0″?

    I love dickhead trademark trolls like that…

  29. Raxit

    Hmmm…

    TechCrunch is really a best place to make people aware about the Web stuff and Startup and related. And i think i personlly also sent few e-mail about BarCampMumbai2, as many folks within india are regular readers of TechCrunch and TechCruncher’s really bringout interesting posts and Real Comments and Feedback ! More importantly Every Organizer may want to put their stuff on TechCrunch for Maximum awareness to reach Enthu. people !

    The only annoying stuff may be Spamming in Frustation or Sending it too much times to them, or Requesting the editor 100 times “Please publish this…” kind of stuff.

    -Raxit
    Plz note : Even publish from IP of my Employer, I am only responsible for any content/comment !

  30. LiveCrunch

    @David Comment:#23: I don’t think you are CEO of anti-spam company and if you are your English language is very unprofessional for a CEO of Anti-Spam company

    As far as the story goes, there is many mp3’s going on with the name “i love you” and as of yet nobody complained about the name, because they made more money from search terms then before.

    Same goes for web 2.0.

  31. plop

    this is a bit like ‘when the boot is on the other foot’ its not ok.

    but hey, Mr A. You are widely regarded among many in the political world to have stolen the idea and name for your tech primaries:

    See allegations

    http://www.techpresident.com/b.....tify_theft

    further listed here

    http://www.techpresident.com/s.....techcrunch

    What have you to say about identity theft now?

  32. David

    #29 - sorry for the poor language skills, it was 5:30am in the morning and I was (and still am) quite tired. ;-)

    Sorry to bust your bubble, but yes, I’m the founder and CEO of MailFoundry. (www.MailFoundry.com) Why you decided to go in this direction in the first place is a bit of a mystery?

  33. Jeremy

    @David Comment:#23: I’ve been getting the same emails from WebGuild, about being on some sort of membership list. Have no idea who they are or how they got my email.

  34. Trae Dorn

    @ David (#30) - You may as well ignore him. I mean, he was criticizing your use of language while typing up something that was barely decipherable himself.

  35. plop

    MA ref allegations listed here

    http://www.techpresident.com/s…..techcrunch

    What have you to say about identity theft now?

  36. plop

    http://tinyurl.com/2fsd5u

    previous link did not work, however here is the grubby dirt

    TechCrunch Commits “Identify Theft” [UPDATED]
    By Micah L. Sifry, 12/23/2007 - 11:38am

    * print
    * email
    * delicious delicious
    * digg digg
    * technorati technorati

    Three days ago, on December 20th, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch posted an announcement on his blog. “Who Will Be the First Tech President?” he asked, and he invited his readers to help him decide which candidates they should endorse as their “Tech President” with an online vote on the site.

    I sent him an email (full text below) objecting to the overlap in names and asking Arrington to call his primary “something different from the ‘Tech President’ primary” and to refer to his overall project “as something other than ‘Who Will Be the First Tech President.’”

    The next morning, a mutual friend got us in touch with his co-editor Erick Schonfeld. After I forwarded him the same email that I had sent Arrington, Schonfeld wrote back to say that he would talk to Arrington and asking if we had a copyright or trademark. I replied, “TechPresident is copyright 2007, Personal Democracy Forum, which is the parent entity. We have a Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-no derivative license on our content.”

    That was midday Friday. We were going to wait a couple of days, figuring that it was the holidays and it was reasonable to give Arrington and crew a few days to respond. But yesterday, we saw a new post by Arrington, titled “Tech President Endorsement on Local Fox Affiliate,” trumpeting Arrington’s appearance on a TV program pitching his online primary and anticipated endorsement. (Ironically, one topic of the conversation was identity theft.)

    Enough. No more benefit of the doubt. Not only are TechCrunch’s actions a violation of our copyright, it is an abuse of our name and reputation to claim that they are organizing a “Tech President Endorsement.”

    We here at TechPresident are covering the presidential election very closely, reporting on and rating how the campaigns are using the web, and doing so in an explicitly nonpartisan way. A claim by any entity, especially a site as widely read as TechCrunch, to be endorsing any candidate as the “Tech President” candidate would be a violation of our purpose and could damage the trust that we have built up with campaign staffers as well as the press as a fair and impartial guide.

    Arrington is clearly ignoring the fact that we own the name Tech President. He can no more describe what he is doing as a “Tech President endorsement” as we could announce that we are preparing a “Tech Crunch endorsement.” This is plain and simple an infringement of our copyright, and an abuse of our name and reputation. (And it’s all the more curious given that he’s named his other properties things like CrunchGear, CrunchBoard, etc. Surely he could use CrunchElection or CrunchPrimary.)

    I take no pleasure from having to make this charge. Frankly, when it comes to the issues, we agree with many of the concerns that Arrington is trying to raise, such as net neutrality and the digital divide. I’d much rather be aligning our forces. But this is identity theft and it’s wrong. [UPDATE: On second thought, I take back the use of that term, which I solely meant as a metaphor, and I apologize for its use.]

    [UPDATE 2:] I’m hearing from various friends asking what is to be done. Our main goal here is to make clear that what TechCrunch is doing is in no way associated with TechPresident. A simple correction or addendum to that effect by Arrington on his blog would go a long way to resolving this.]

    Here’s the full text of the email I sent Arrington Thursday:

    I’m writing about your post ” Who Will be the First Tech President” and your call on your readers to help pick the first “Tech President.”

    It’s great that you’re working to get the candidates to address technology issues more seriously. Our community needs to keep injecting these questions into the national debate in as many ways as possible.

    I’m writing, though, to hopefully correct what I assume to be a simple oversight on your part.

    TechPresident is a group blog that covers how the candidates are using the web, and how the web is using them. We launched in February of this year. (You covered us early on, in fact.) We’ve been featured in the Washington Post, the New York Times and a host of other outlets; we were named one of Time magazine’s top 10 best websites of 2007; and we won this year’s Knight-Batten Innovation in Journalism Award.

    In May of this year, at the fourth annual Personal Democracy Forum, keynoted by Larry Schmidt, Tom Friedman, and Larry Lessig (among others), we issued a challenge to the candidates titled ” Who Will Be America’s First Tech President?” Since then, we’ve graded the candidates on their tech policy positions, which we’ve also written up in our biweekly column for The Politico. And we’ve launched a major collaboration with the New York Times editorial board, MSNBC.com and 50 leading political blogs to involve the web community in a new online video presidential forum called 10Questions.com.

    In short, we’re all over this topic.

    That said, it’s a big web and we can understand if you were not aware of any of this. We have two simple requests. First, that you acknowledge techPresident.com and the work we’ve been doing to get the presidential campaigns to be more internet-savvy.

    Our second request is that you call your primary something different from the “Tech President” primary and refer to your overall project as something other than “Who Will Be the First Tech President.”

    If we had launched something called the “TechCrunch Primary” and issued a call for “Who Will Be the First TechCrunch President” I’m sure you would have responded the same way.

    The truth is, we don’t particularly like to have to pick this bone with you and would much rather be behaving cooperatively in pursuit of larger common goals–like a White House and a Washington that better understands the digital age and its challenges. Indeed, all our work–from our conference and our column to our sites–is focused on building bridges and understanding between the political and technology communities.

    So, I’m hoping this can be resolved amicably and perhaps we can even talk about ways to combine our forces.

    Sincerely,

    Micah Sifry
    Editor
    techPresident.com

    I sent this email to Arrington on Thursday, December 20, at 7:41pm EST. I still have not heard back from him.

  37. plop

    its all in English…

  38. Brad

    I really do not understand what the big deal is? Web 2.0 is a brand? Who owns World War 2.0 Do you work for O’Reilly? How much did the pay you in 2007?

    I suppose since you have not heard of webguild then it must not be important, right?

    As far as comments that are spam - that’s what most comments are anyway. Excluding this one of course.

  39. Marzipan

    @6: Technicle

    That is a TM violation. Your domain sounds too much like Testicle.

  40. kim bjorkland

    Oh how sweet it is, when the web 2.0 crowd has it’s own black pot handed back to it by mister kettle.

    Web 2.0 darlings like youtube, myspace et al are built on tarrif avoidance. Taking trademark laws and throwing them out the window. This is the mashup world we’re told. We just don’t get it we’re told.

    Now the importance of trademarks has bitten the king of web 2.0 in the ass.

    “Passing off” which is what these guys are doing, is just *one* important impact of tm laws. There are others that members of the web 2.0 community and this blog choose to over run.

    So why pick and choose? Tm violation is okay, but passing off isn’t?

    Why? Because you’re now the victim???

  41. Technicle

    @26 caveman

    >So your saying that your proposed web 3.0 conference will be backwards compatible?

    no web3.0 conference… just web3.0, sans conference.

    well, actually, more intended as just kidding… mightbe, will give it a try.. ;-)

  42. Trae Dorn

    @Kim Bjorkland - Because none of the examples you cite are misleading like this is. It’s about the appearance of deception, not IP. Youtube having copyrighted content isn’t analogous - it’s more like if Youtube was calling itself NBC and hosting said content, which would lead people to believe it was the real NBC’s website.

  43. Technicle

    @40 Marzipan
    >That is a TM violation. Your domain sounds too much like Testicle.

    Hmm, mightbe?.. if Technicle.com could be as interesting as.. Testicle.sth?

    And, how’s Lulu vs. Hulu going?

    In any case, hopefully would be better than sth like http://facebook.mediatrending.com/ trivially “aggregating” content from allfacebook, et. al., no?

    Anyway, who’s doing web3.0, and/or, who covers web3.0 — with some focus? /ac.

  44. micfo.com

    Not sure what politics is going on there but I really like the concept behind WebGuild.

  45. Technicle

    “Web 2.0″ trademark, per USPTO (note “business conferences”) –

    Word Mark WEB 2.0
    Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005

    IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005
    Standard Characters Claimed
    Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
    Serial Number 78322306
    Filing Date November 3, 2003
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1B
    Published for Opposition September 13, 2005
    Registration Number 3110027
    Registration Date June 27, 2006
    Owner (REGISTRANT) CMP MEDIA LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 600 COMMUNITY DRIVE MANHASSET NEW YORK 11030
    Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
    Attorney of Record Susan L. Heller and Joseph Geisman
    Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “WEB” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  46. Technicle

    In other words, it (the “Web 2.0″ trademark) is owned by CMP (and not OReilly) (and perhaps henceforth the co-producing role of each, of THE conference)..

  47. David

    #33 Jeremy. When I got my first email(s) from WebGuild, I figured others were getting it as well. Since they ignore my requests to unsubscribe, and I never subscribed in the first place, I had a spam block put on their newsletters which was distributed to thousands of MailFoundry servers world wide on the next 5 minute update. Even though this guy runs a legitimate industry show, he’s still spamming by definition.

  48. Rookie

    Daya is very unethical in the manner in which he runs both Gruuve and Webguild. He is notorious for being shady and not honoring his commitments. It is about time he has been shown for what he is absolute scum. Thanks TC for showing the tech community who this a**hole is.

  49. AnonTroll

    Congratulations, you’ve been TechPunched!

  50. TruthQuest

    Like someone said in the comments above, it seems like this guy Daya is using WebGuild as a platform to promote his company Gruuve (sick!) and also to garner exposure and free PR for himself and his company. The fact that he has been spamming everyone and also posting comments of self-promotion using the same IP address tells a lot about the underhand nature of his outfit(s). I’m deeply connected in SV and will contact my network at Google et al, to stop engaging with WebGuild and with Daya.
    Amen.

  51. Carl

    mike
    competition is good…

  52. sam

    # Robert Scoble

    January 1st, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Absolutely NOT OK. I’m removing any trace of these guys from my Upcoming Event Calendar that I keep at http://upcoming.yahoo.com/user/138148/

    Robert who really gives a shit what you think really…just go back to san jose since working at msft was the high light of your career.
    best,
    sam

  53. Robert Scoble

    sam: no, the highlight of my career will be tomorrow when I interview Doug Engelbart, inventor of the mouse.

  54. sam

    robert
    no really, the highlight of your career was at podtech…or being in line to get an iphone in palo alto.
    best,
    sam

  55. jamboree

    Scoble,

    I have heard Egelbart speak and he usually speaks in concepts that are very hard to wrap your head around. So good luck in making the interview the highlight of your career. (A hint: try to be specific in your questions).

    Engelbart’s talks reminds me a little of Steve Jurvetson - but I think Steve intentionally talks above his audience to make him look smart. LOL

  56. Calvin

    Legal? Yes.
    Good ethics? No.
    Good way to make a quick buck? Yes!

  57. steve

    why are big brands sponsoring this event….they should pull the plug and punish these guys for cheating, spamming dirty tricks

  58. Amit

    Love the TechPunched name…
    look out for a fake news spoof on tech crunch…

    how bout PushYourAgendaWithoutDisclaimer.com

    too long… techpunched it is!

  59. alex piner

    bah, I am glad you “showcased” the Webguild events, as the speakers as GREAT folks in my mind, and the cost is a wee bit better than the orielly/carlson gang charges..

    and Brad Neuberg is on point for working with Engelbart on “webifying” the Open HyperDoc System http://hyperscope.org/

    cool, Scoble get to pimp Doug Engelbart (greatest Inventor ever, as his motivation is to solve “wicked problems”, not have a bigger bank account, and his team at ARC at SRI did waay more than the mouse)

  60. Daniel

    I agree with steve… the blame here falls on the sponsors more than anyone. The big ones (Google and Sun at least) have been sponsors for the “real” events, and they should really be doing their homework before agreeing to sponsor these events.

    That said, the test now is how the sponsors react when confronted with the fact that they’re sponsoring events with unethical practices.

  61. Mauricio

    the best techpunch is scoble’s:

    “sam: no, the highlight of my career will be tomorrow when I interview Doug Engelbart, inventor of the mouse.”

    I like scoble’s view of technology and life: every day is a new better day!

    as for the web 2.0 thing, the guild guys should really change the name. SHAME ON YOU! - techpunched!

  62. Technicle

    change it to Web 3.0 :-)

  63. Jennifer Pahlka

    One minor correction to Mike’s story. I’m the general manager for the web 2.0 events at CMP, and I am the one who’s been repeatedly emailing and calling Daya about the name confusion. Daya knows fully well that I represent both O’Reilly and CMP in this; we’ve had previous (friendly) discussions. So when he says that he was not aware that O’Reilly had been trying to contact him, it’s misleading. My emails to him start back in October.

  64. Gruuvie

    So is someone going to do anything about this imposter? Daya is simply using this facade of an event as a front for his company. I’d be interested in knowing how his company Gruuvu or Gruouve or whatever is coincidentally a sponsor of this conference?

  65. Brendan

    In all fairness, the Web Guild is a non-profit organization that holds monthly forums for web professionals to learn and network, while the other conferences mentioned are for profit.

  66. Mike

    True, but that’s still no excuse for Daya to be so unethical.
    I think the final results of their events end up positive, but the way Daya gets there is far from professional.

  67. CanCar

    The main idea of those comments was to gain publicity FREE, because without concerning what she was said in each one of the comments she mentioned “Web 2.0″ repeatedly. Although I am in agree with the previous comment, is lack of ethics.

  68. Tim Orielly

    I am Tim Orielly, shall i sue Tim from O’Reilly for using my name??
    This is sick. As he himself says, its just a concept and nothing else. Moreover, MSFT and big companies are using web2.0 just for marketting purpose and nothing..

    if you could go to a conferecne and pay $199 and hear the same thing from the same speaker instead of paying $2900 - which event would you go to??

    I think non-profit organizations like Web Guild is a must.