Isn't the entire point of the term ecmascript created to resolve this?
Brendan Eich always used to say that ecmascript sounds like a skin disease.
[deleted]
Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
11–20 of 90 posts
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#12What are the grounds for invalidating the trademark? > we’ll start discovery to show how "JavaScript" is widely recognized as a generic term But "JavaScript" is always referring to the same thing, it is not a term for "in browser scripting". Am I missing something?
It’s being filed by the creator Node.js, so I don’t think “in browser scripting” is the proper category.
The grounds are non-use. Oracle doesn’t actually offer a “JavaScript” product.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#13What are the grounds for invalidating the trademark? > we’ll start discovery to show how "JavaScript" is widely recognized as a generic term But "JavaScript" is always referring to the same thing, it is not a term for "in browser scripting". Am I missing something?
Whenever anyone says "JavaScript" they actually mean "ECMAScript", which is the language browsers and scripting engines actually implement. The Web standard documents cannot use the term "JavaScript" because of the trademark issue.
There isn't even such a thing as "Oracle JavaScript", they are sitting on the trademark without using it.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#14Isn't the entire point of the term ecmascript created to resolve this?
It prevents Oracle from suing, but everybody calls it JavaScript anyway...
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#15What are the grounds for invalidating the trademark? > we’ll start discovery to show how "JavaScript" is widely recognized as a generic term But "JavaScript" is always referring to the same thing, it is not a term for "in browser scripting". Am I missing something?
JavaScript can refer to many different similar languages, the runtimes, the standard library, etc.
People using JavaScript without getting permission are potentially infringing on Oracle's trademark. Many companies with trademarks tenaciously defend the trademark to protect it from being revoked. This doesn't appear to be the case with JavaScript. After usage becomes widespread, a company risks losing their trademark because they did not actively enforce the use of the trademark.
This video explains it from Velcro's perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#16[deleted]
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#17Isn't the entire point of the term ecmascript created to resolve this?
Ecmascript was coined by ECMA International when they published the JS standard just to cover their ass and not get sued by Sun. It was never intended to be a name for the language, and has never been treated as such.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#18Are they claiming that since they own the Java trademark that they can own the JavaScript trademark?
No, Sun trademarked JavaScript in the late 90s. Oracle acquired the trademark when they acquired Sun. Netscape - as you may know - originally called JavaScript LiveScript, but changed it to JavaScript, at least partially to ride the Java hype train. Sun retained the IP related to the name.
And though Sun was undeniably more worthy of sympathy than Oracle is, Sun’s original claim on the trademark seems just as bogus as Oracle’s current one.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#19I expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…
(Not a lawyer.) To have rights to a trademark, you have to use it in, well, trade. It’s not enough for a term to refer to a specific thing in normal usage, you must have a widely recognized claim on that thing. It should be in the customer’s interest that your thing not be confusable with thing-alikes that others may offer, specifically by having an exclusive right to be sold as the thing. And Oracle demonstrably does not deal in “JavaScript” any more than many many other companies and individuals do.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Sun trademarked JavaScript in the late 90s. Oracle acquired the trademark when they acquired Sun. Netscape - as you may know - originally called JavaScript LiveScript, but changed it to JavaScript, at least partially to ride the Java hype train. Sun retained the IP related to the name.
And though Sun was undeniably more worthy of sympathy than Oracle is, Sun’s original claim on the trademark seems just as bogus as Oracle’s current one.
Maybe. I'm not a lawyer, let alone an IP lawyer, but Netscape creating a programming language called "JavaScript" seems like the kind of thing that would be likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. Netscape explicitly chose the name to latch on to the popularity of Java at the time. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Sun of 1997 to want to protect their interest in the Java name by licensing it to Netscape but controlling the underlying trademark.