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?
First rule of business: Don't give away anything for free
Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
81–90 of 96 posts
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#82It was called LiveScript at first. It's a better name anyway why not use it?
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#83This is a much better url: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92086835
In Claim 2, Deno shows Oracle basically just capture nodejs website and calms this trademark is still in use. How crazy this is.
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he had called Apple “a butthead fruit company”, it wouldn’t make sense to hold him to higher standard. But a legal response to some light hearted rudeness? That was him taking things to a significantly lower standard. If instead, he had used “Butthead Astronomer” to refer to himself on occasion, that would have only added to his (already significant and well deserved) legendary status.
> If he had called Apple “a butthead fruit company”, it wouldn’t make sense to hold him to higher standard. What is this supposed to mean?
That nobody should critique someone, for such a proportional response.
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#85Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have something valuable and they gain nothing from giving it up.
What value do they get from it? And in order to keep it, they must expend resources, and negative PR (although Oracle already had a bad enough reputation, that this would probably be negligible).
> negative PR
Laughs in Larry Ellison
It is just transactional corporate logic. You do not give up something unless you get something of greater value in return. You do not do things for good will, you do things for PR, etc. and sure as hell don’t let them fly under the radar. If some middle or senior manager let that fly without a blessing from the top, they would be ostracized.
I’m not saying it’s right, but I’ve been part of that culture and understand it very well.
Part of owning trademarks is defending them, and Oracle has plenty, so the cost is de minimis.
Even if the trademark is not doing anything for them now, it provides optionally they would not otherwise have. It may also be a negotiation tool down the road.
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#87TypeScript solves this.
this is my favorite take.
“oracle’s trademark sucks, long live microsoft’s trademark”
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I think the subsequent libel lawsuits demonstrates it was all just ego
So he was supposed to just accept being called "Butt-Head Astronomer"? Sure, I’d respect him more if he did, but I’m not going to call him pompous or having a big ego just because he didn’t.
Yes, that's the nature of free speech. Butt-Head is clearly a statement of opinion and not of fact. Apple is entitled to communicate their opinion of people. It is clearly not defamatory.
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he was supposed to just accept being called "Butt-Head Astronomer"? Sure, I’d respect him more if he did, but I’m not going to call him pompous or having a big ego just because he didn’t.
Yes, that's the nature of free speech. Butt-Head is clearly a statement of opinion and not of fact. Apple is entitled to communicate their opinion of people. It is clearly not defamatory.
[deleted]
Re: Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a bit lost here. Shouldn't the blame fall more on the people who used someone else's name without permission and acted like jerks when asked to stop? Why are we holding the victim to a higher standard now?
It's possible for someone to have the legal right to demand something and still be a butthead for demanding it. Noting that fact doesn't make you a jerk.
As I mentioned earlier, I was not here to debate the legality of his (or Apple’s) actions, but from the moral perspective.
In my view, what the Apple engineers did was inappropriate, especially when they doubled down after being asked to stop. It’s not unlike typical bullying behaviors seen in high school ("it's just a joke, why so serious?"). Jokes on someone else are only funny when they approve them.