21–30 of 135 posts
VELCRO(r) has this song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY
Edit: as I watched the video again I finally caught on the fact that RollerBlades are a brand of inline-skates. In Belgium we called them inline-skates.
It's interesting to see how brands-as-identifiers change based on language and countries. My Walloon friend calls tape Scotch, but I don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As the letter notes, Oracle has never actually taken any kind of action to keep people from using the name. They don't even make performative reminders. They know their claim on the mark is weak and they aren't going to waste a lot of lawyer time on it. But it's Oracle, so they won't willingly give up anything that might be worth more than a dime. This is just to note their continued non-action when the USPTO is aske…
JavaScript is just a name. The current language's official name, according to the specification defining that language, is ECMAScript. If the trademark is a problem then simply call it by a different name.
So when the geeks got to finally put the open standard out there they had a chance to fix this nonsense and take back the name! And they chose ECMAScript! .... wait they chose WHAT?!?
The article kinda glossed over how Sun got the trademark: "As a result of this partnership...". What does "this" refer to? Using the same syntax?
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.
Oracle gets no real benefit from the trademark, and getting everyone to stop calling it JavaScript is basically impossible. It would be better for everyone for Oracle to just abandon the trademark.
I don't expect Oracle to actively release the trademark, but it would be better if they did.
And they'll hold on to that tightly.
The most manifest example of this is simply what they made the Eclipse org jump through when they dropped, now, "Jakarta" EE. That was not a small rock in the Java pond at the time when we had to go through the Great Renaming.
But they did it anyway because the packages used to be named "javax", and Oracle was not going to let that go.
Oracle still uses Java though. You can't spell JavaScript without Java. Regardless, JavaScript is now much larger than Java, so the trademark for JS should at least revert to the public.
Curious, but in what way? Java still drive lots of enterprise and banks, and I cant' say I've seen any Node.js in the backend at any of these places.
Oracle still uses Java though. You can't spell JavaScript without Java. Regardless, JavaScript is now much larger than Java, so the trademark for JS should at least revert to the public.
> Regardless, JavaScript is now much larger than Java Curious, but in what way? Java still drive lots of enterprise and banks, and I cant' say I've seen any Node.js in the backend at any of these places.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/793628/worldwide-develop...