11–20 of 135 posts
The letter makes points that the trademark is already abandoned. I'm not familiar with trademark laws, but if the trademark is already abandoned, why the need for the letter?
Abandoned as in "they aren't using it", but they do keep renewing the trademark so they still hold it.
If anything to break with the old (IE6 and similar) javascripts that are still there, running somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abandoned as in "they aren't using it", but they do keep renewing the trademark so they still hold it.
I have a domain name that I haven't used in years. I keep renewing it though, just in case.
> Sincerely,
> Ryan Dahl - creator of Node.js
> Brendan Eich - creator of JavaScript
> Michael Ficarra - editor of the JavaScript spec
> Rich Harris - creator of Svelte
> Isaac Z. Schlueter - creator of npm
> Feross Aboukhadijeh - CEO of Socket
> James M Snell - member of Node.js TSC
> Wes Bos - host of Syntax.fm
> Scott Tolinski - host of Syntax.fm
> and 191 more members of the JavaScript community
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly have not read the post :D
If you mean: Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript and a co-signatory of this letter, wrote in 2006 that “ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that sounds like a skin disease.” Then this is not a matter of trademark or identity. It is only a matter of marketing. If this is just a matter of trademark my comment remains equally valid. Just use a different name.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici...
“Aspirin”, “elevators”, “laundromat” are just a few examples.
Even “App Store” was trademarked (by Apple).
In what way? I don't see any immediate benefits.
The letter makes points that the trademark is already abandoned. I'm not familiar with trademark laws, but if the trademark is already abandoned, why the need for the letter?
Oracle's lawyers dutifully renew the trademark annually. Despite their lack of active use, this leaves the door open for future use. It creates a nebulous state where Oracle could choose to initiate a costly legal action against someone using the trademark. One of those situations where the law can be on your side but the real problem is if you can afford the legal battle.