There's lots of companies that don't allow blogging, the New York Times reports today.
That's cool. I hope none of my competitors allow their employees to blog. Why? You'd be amazed at the number of job seekers we get simply because we blog openly and, even report that there's dirt under the rug over in the corner.
Yeah, it drives our PR teams nuts, but that's why they earn the big bucks!
I'd never work at a place that didn't let me have open and frank conversations with my customers. That just seems nutty to me. How about you?
Rick Segal says I appreciate CMP and Tim O'Reilly taking over my "King Evil" spot — by trademarking, and defending such, the words "Web 2.0" in a cease-and-desist letter to Tom Raftery.
Um, no. I want that spot all to myself! I hate it when people try to steal my evil. :-)
Seriously, this news was discussed by Shel Israel, my coauthor, and a bunch of other people over on Memeorandum.
This brings about memories of when a competitor to Fawcette Technical Publication's conference series would copy everything we did (down to the format of the brochure). So, I understand some sensitivity on behalf of conference producers to brands and trademarks.
That said, all this does is give IT@Cork a bunch of free publicity. All Tom has to do is change it to "Future of the Web Workshop" and the lawyers don't have a case and they get all this free publicity.
It looks like O'Reilly is claiming a service mark on "web 2.0 conference" if you visit their conference Web site. IT@Cork's site says "Web 2.0 Half Day Conference." That could, possibly, be confusing to people, so CMP and O'Reilly probably does have a legal case. But, probably not if they change the name to "Web 2.0 Half Day Symposium" or something like that.
Either way, I don't think it's confusing enough to warrant the lawyers and the impending bad PR for CMP and O'Reilly.
Update: O'Reilly responds here.