Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#41

Post by thayne »

worik wrote: post #6

What 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 the standard specification of ECMAScript, as well as the many implementations notably including v8 (chromium, node, deno), JavaScriptCore (webkit), and spidermonkey (Firefox), as well as some lesser known ones like duktape and QuickJS. And it can also be used to refer to an ECMAScript implementation plus an additional runtime platform like the Web API, or something like node or deno.

And Oracle doesn't control any of that. The only thing I know of that Oracle has related to JavaScript is Graal.js, which is just yet another implementation of ECMAScript, and didn't even exist for most of the time Sun and Oracle held the trademark.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#42

Post by giancarlostoro »

arllk wrote: post #23
mananaysiempre wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 doe…

The only JavaScript offering from Oracle that I know of is GraalVM[0]. It's funny though - they use "JavaScript" and "ECMAScript" interchangeably in their docs. They call it "A high-performance embeddable JavaScript runtime for Java" but then tout it as "ECMAScript Compliant", basically acknowledging that JavaScript is defined by ECMAScript specs and the terms mean the same thing. [0] https://www.graalvm.org/javascri…

Them calling it ECMAScript in some instances means that it follows the actual ECMA spec for ECMAScript (what everyone calls JavaScript historically). Them calling it JavaScript implies it could be their flavor, or something like Node and not necessarily strictly ECMAScript, at least that'd be the reason I'd use it interchangeably.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#45

Post by angled »

throw646577 wrote: post #35
marcus0x62 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Netsca…

Netscape didn't just try to "latch onto" the popularity of Java. Netscape _and_ Sun, together, called it JavaScript. The point was that the renamed language had rudimentary bindings that you could use to connect functionality in an HTML page with the applets embedded in it (which were effectively silo'd in HotJava) https://web.archive.org/web/20070916144913/https://wp.netsca... It was fully a partner decision. Also,…

That press release and the list of partner companies are amazing. Marc Benioff was the listed press contact for Oracle!

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#46

Post by fsckboy »

arllk wrote: post #23
mananaysiempre wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 doe…

The only JavaScript offering from Oracle that I know of is GraalVM[0]. It's funny though - they use "JavaScript" and "ECMAScript" interchangeably in their docs. They call it "A high-performance embeddable JavaScript runtime for Java" but then tout it as "ECMAScript Compliant", basically acknowledging that JavaScript is defined by ECMAScript specs and the terms mean the same thing. [0] https://www.graalvm.org/javascri…

not sure if this is why they do it, but trademark law requires you to have a generic name for your product. "Kleenex brand facial tissue"

not having and using a generic name creates the danger of people attaching your trademarked name as the generic and you might lose your trademark.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#47

Post by 12_throw_away »

thayne wrote: post #38

Is Oracle wasting people's time and money (including their own) just for the fun of it? I don't see any practical reason to fight this.

> Is Oracle wasting people's time and money (including their own) just for the fun of it?

No, as "fun" is a human concept. Don't fall into that trap [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630410

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#48

Post by bawolff »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #18
marcus0x62 wrote: post #3

Earlier 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.

On the contrary, i think sun's claim back in the 90s was pretty strong. Only one company was making javascript and they were doing so under license.

Fast forward to today and there are many people making "javascript" that don't seem to have a relationship to oracle and nobody has been trying to defend the mark for a long time. Seems pretty genericized to me.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#49

Post by bawolff »

nayuki wrote: post #36
that_guy_iain wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the fact Oracle didn't sue for trademark infringement on that or TypeScript which is often referred to as JavaScript is probably not going to help Oracle here. But I doubt Oracle cares either way.

Nor did they sue ActionScript (Macromedia Flash's implementation of JavaScript), CoffeeScript (a separate language that compiles to JavaScript, and has a name very much evoking Java).

I don't see any reason why that would matter. The name "actionscript" does not have the word "java" in it.

The relavent part is they didn't sue anyone using the name "javascript". Even if they had a valid trademark (which i doubt) that doesn't prevent anyone from selling a similar product under a different name.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#50

Post by Stratoscope »

cosmotic wrote: post #15
worik wrote: post #6

What 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…

That is one of my favorite videos!

Content advisory: there is one swear word in it that is bleeped out.

Near the end they mention some other trademarks, and adding to the fun they bleep out those too - and even put CENSORED overlays on the singers' mouths.

They also made a followup video that is just as delightful (and slightly more NSFW):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWMQLMiTPk

And here is a fun article about some other companies' friendly alternatives to the traditional C&D letter:

https://www.cll.com/OnMyMindBlog/creativity-can-make-tradema...

Post reply on HN