This was probably an automated script and just a precaution from Apple. I think it's safe to use the name JavaScript. For me JavaScript is ES5, eg before 2015 and EcmaScript is the new JavaScript from ES6 2015 and onwards.
Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
121–130 of 206 posts
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#122I'm surprised that "JavaScript" has not become a generic trademark [0]. Examples from the Wikipedia article include Thermos, Chapstick, and Dumpster. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
I wasn't even aware that Oracle owned the trademark. With Java, you can't really get around them, since you need to download JDK, but JavaScript just works. Maybe we can crowd fund a lawsuit!
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the issue here. Try selling a product called "Kleenex Dispenser" or "Man's Guide to Kleenex" and see how far you get. That's a more analogous example.
> I'm surprised that "JavaScript" has not become a generic trademark If Kleenex = Java and Kleenex Dispenser = javascript, your argument is wrong.
I think the argument is Kleenex = javascript and "Kleenex Dispenser" = "HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, HTML, Snippet Editor":
https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/8d0bg2/oracle_o...
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#124I'm surprised that "JavaScript" has not become a generic trademark [0]. Examples from the Wikipedia article include Thermos, Chapstick, and Dumpster. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
I doubt it. Where this has happened is where people get confused and call other things by the name.
Adobe is worried about protecting Photoshop as people use the word as a verb for editing photos in other apps. Kimberly-Clark is worried about protecting Kleenex as people use the word as substitute for other tissues (at least in the U.S.) And Velcro is worried about protecting their namesake (it’s a hook and loop).
People don’t typically confuse other scripting languages or web technologies for JavaScript. The reason Oracle cares here is not to protect the JavaScript brand. Instead, it’s to protect the Java brand, which people do confuse with other languages (or at least with JavaScript).
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#125Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. When they said: > The unauthorized display of our client's intellectual property is likely to cause consumers encountering this app to mistakenly believe that it emanates from, or is provided under a license from, Oracle. I think most of us would agree that no , literally almost no one familiar with JavaScript would have believed that app to “emanate from, or be provided under a license from, Oracle”. I know…
" When I think of JS, Oracle is like the last company I would think of." - Check out Oracle JET (JavaScript Toolkit), it's an open source library for modern web developers : https://github.com/oracle/oraclejet
LOL
Google taught everybody a lesson, avoid Oracle products.
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#127Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the issue here. Try selling a product called "Kleenex Dispenser" or "Man's Guide to Kleenex" and see how far you get. That's a more analogous example.
> I'm surprised that "JavaScript" has not become a generic trademark If Kleenex = Java and Kleenex Dispenser = javascript, your argument is wrong.
His argument is valid. You are correcting something he never said.
Kleenex = JavaScript
Kranky Kim's Kleenex Keeper = Blue Mountain JavaScript Percolator
Kleenex is probably a bad example, because Kleenex has actually defended their trademark. At least I don't think Kranky Kim could actually use Kleenex in her product name.
I think the legal argument for the genericized meaning of "javascript" is valid and could be argued, in that you ciuld show that it's reasonable for anyone to think it was merely a noun and not a trademark. But the argument would take more years and money than any individual developer has.
Which begs the question: Is there any such thing as a class action but for defense instead of lawsuit? Oracle could snuff out a million app developers individually without ever even having to so much as appear once in court. Just send these letters. But could a million developers act as a class in a defense the way they could in an action?
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying the reality is much worse? Or that Oracle has a bright side?
It's one of the market leader in enterprise software and database for decades. Don't be just another hater.
"Suyash Joshi is a a senior software engineer at Oracle"
Next time, just put "Disclaimer: I work for Oracle"
Re: Oracle owns “JavaScript”, so Apple is taking down my app
#130It is unfortunate that "ECMAScript" is simply a terrible name. I understand why the term is used, but that doesn't make it inherently good, easy to say, or memorable. Fortunately the ES shorthand is more workable (e.g. ES6, ES2017, etc).
> 1995 - Brendan Eich reads up on every mistake ever made in designing a programming language, invents a few more, and creates LiveScript. Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.
From the brilliant "A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages": http://james-iry.blogspot.co.il/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and... .