Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#21

Post by thayne » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:00 AM UTC

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #18

No surprise here. If someone files to cancel your trademark and you want to fight it, you file an appearance.

The surprise (kind of) is that Oracle wants to fight it.

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#22

Post by genter » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:01 AM UTC

thayne wrote: post #20

I'm really curious about Oracle's motivation for fighting this. What value do they see in continuing to hold a trademark they aren't really using, and no one associates with them anyway?

Do you ask a lawnmower why it chewed your hand off after sticking it in there?

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#23

Post by alberth » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:02 AM UTC

This seems like Deno poked the bear, and now the bear feels forced to defend itself.

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#24

Post by InMice » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:08 AM UTC

They didn't catch their misspelling of "appearance" on page 2 of this filing? It's only 2 pages long and they missed this, really?

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#25

Post by bhouston » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:09 AM UTC

kopecs wrote: post #17

bhouston wrote: post #5

If Deno loses, do they have to pay Oracle's super expensive lawyer fees? I worry that the fees are probably ridiculously high.

In America each party typically bears their own costs.

Ah! I just checked with Claude and it says:

> In the United States, the general rule is known as the "American Rule" - each party typically pays their own attorney's fees and court costs, regardless of who wins the case. This is different from many other countries that follow the "English Rule" where the losing party pays the winner's legal fees.

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#26

Post by Cpoll » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:11 AM UTC

genter wrote: post #22

thayne wrote: post #20

I'm really curious about Oracle's motivation for fighting this. What value do they see in continuing to hold a trademark they aren't really using, and no one associates with them anyway?

Do you ask a lawnmower why it chewed your hand off after sticking it in there?

For those who don't know: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2315

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#27

Post by pc86 » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:11 AM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #15

Clsssic oracle

Classic Oracle, filing some bureaucratic paperwork letting the court know they have representation in this case?

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#28

Post by diggan » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

m463 wrote: post #19

Maybe we could change the filetype from .js to .bho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc...

Seems .law (lawyers are wimps) is more fitting

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#29

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

genter wrote: post #22

thayne wrote: post #20

I'm really curious about Oracle's motivation for fighting this. What value do they see in continuing to hold a trademark they aren't really using, and no one associates with them anyway?

Do you ask a lawnmower why it chewed your hand off after sticking it in there?

[deleted]

Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]

#30

Post by metadat » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

m463 wrote: post #19

Maybe we could change the filetype from .js to .bho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc...

That'd require giving Oracle unwarranted attention.

The Sagan bit was funny because Apple engineers transitioned from loving him to resenting him :)