171–180 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" 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
Wait, Oracle? On GITHUB? Now I have seen everything...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a corporate lawyer. Are corporate lawyers not the physical manifestation of malice itself?
There are no lawyers in this thread, huh? My wife is a corporate lawyer, so ive seen a little bit of these shenanigans from her perspective. And it pretty much boils down to this: there are certain risks lawyers can take and keep their jobs, and risks they will lose their jobs over. Like everyone else, they do not enjoy unemployment. Saying “this business idea is fine, go for it” and it succeeds? They get no credit.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a corporate lawyer. Are corporate lawyers not the physical manifestation of malice itself?
There are no lawyers in this thread, huh? My wife is a corporate lawyer, so ive seen a little bit of these shenanigans from her perspective. And it pretty much boils down to this: there are certain risks lawyers can take and keep their jobs, and risks they will lose their jobs over. Like everyone else, they do not enjoy unemployment. Saying “this business idea is fine, go for it” and it succeeds? They get no credit.…
How to defend a trademark is also a business decision. Dollars to donuts says that Oracle's corporate lawyers have "defend Oracle IP" as a generic goal, and that they know that suing a big player over infringement of their JavaScript (tm) mark would be the sort of business decision that requires senior executive approval, but sending out cease&desist letters to nobodies almost certainly requires no executive approval. This is standard corporate organization and operation. But this too is how you get into PR problems, for example, and corporate lawyers don't really think about that.
Now, whether Oracle should or should not be taking these actions to defend the JavaScript (tm) mark -- I don't know. That's their business, and it's a business decision. That the law and courts don't look askance at small-scale enforcement of rapidly-becoming-generic marks is a completely separate problem for some other day. Corporate lawyers should make sure that this is what the business wants. If Oracle as a business has decided that this is what it wants, fine, and I'm ready to believe that they have, but I find it a lot easier to believe that this is just a small decision made by their legal department in something of a vacuum.
I knew that Microsoft had to call their ECMAScript implementation JScript, but it never dawned on me that Oracle is the current owner of the "JavaScript" trademark: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2416017&caseSearchType=US_... Between this and Oracle's ongoing lawsuit against Google for their use of Java in Android, I have a pretty low opinion of Oracle.
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…
Is anyone else bothered by the likelihood that the writer of this sentence doesn't believe it's true? 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another comment pointed out that Netscape originally planned to call it LiceScript but was encouraged by Sun to change it JavaScript so I say if we're going to change the name we go with the original one. Either that or argue that the original holder of the Java trademark essentially blessed the use of its mark and continue calling it JavaScript.
> LiceScript Ahem, "LiveScript": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#History
Earlier 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…
I believe trademark laws require trademark holders to actively enforce them or they run the risk of losing the trademark when it comes up in something that actually matters. Although really Oracle should have the sense to see the state of the landscape and just drop it. It's become a generic term - in fact, it always was.
That way, they keep everything 'java' protected, without the poor PR of targeting the use of the term 'JavaScript'.
Earlier 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