51–60 of 85 posts
This shouldn't be news to anyone who's old enough to remember the internet in the 90's. Back then Microsoft named their EMCAScript implementation "JScript" to avoid problems with Sun's trademark (I'm sure everyone on here is already aware that Oracle bought Sun a few years back). However I don't think this trademark is worth anything to Oracle any longer. Trademarks need to be defended or they're lost. This is why Wo…
Can"t common use be used to nullify a trademark?
I don't think so.
This shouldn't be news to anyone who's old enough to remember the internet in the 90's. Back then Microsoft named their EMCAScript implementation "JScript" to avoid problems with Sun's trademark (I'm sure everyone on here is already aware that Oracle bought Sun a few years back). However I don't think this trademark is worth anything to Oracle any longer. Trademarks need to be defended or they're lost. This is why Wo…
Are you a lawyer?
Start calling it PhpScript or LispScript; there would be no loss of accuracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly speaking, JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript, not merely a generic term.
IANAL, but it will depend on whether JavaScript is used by members of the public to refer to ECMAScript that isn't JavaScript (that's a mouthful). In other words, I can call a fountain pen a biro and that shows that the trademark has become generic, it doesn't matter that I'm technically wrong. This is how it works in Commonwealth jurisdictions anyway, haven't checked US law for about a year.
A: Want a coke?
B: Yes, a 7-up please.
How is Coca-Cola dealing with this? Do they have a policy or a strategy?
Wikipedia says: "Today, 'JavaScript' is a trademark of Oracle Corporation. It is used under license for technology invented and implemented by Netscape Communications and current entities such as the Mozilla Foundation." [1] It's one of a long list of Java-related trademarks originally registered by Sun: https://web.archive.org/web/20100528154600/http://www.sun.co... Maybe Sun originally intended it to be the name of…
According to Crockford[0], Netscape called it LiveScript, originally. In their attempt to 'destroy Microsoft', they teamed up with Sun. One of Sun's original goals with Java was making it the client-side scripting language for the browser. However, Netscape had LiveScript. Apparently the negotiations almost broke down over this point. In an enlightened moment, (probably) Marc Andreessen proposed renaming LiveScript t…
They might as well have standardized it under the trademarked name, though. It seems that anything can be called JavaScript as long as it adheres to the spec (although strictly speaking Mozilla's JavaScript is versioned independently and the term "JavaScript" usually describes a superset of ECMAScript).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's explains how LiveScript became Javascript but it doesn't answer the more interesting question: how did Netscape end up using a Sun trademark?
I don't really understand what remains unclear. The cited section explains that when Java got put into the browser, executives of both companies got together and decided that it would be good PR to rename LiveScript into JavaScript. As Java was a trademark by Sun, they obviously had to register JavaSript as well (if they hadn't already done so - I did not look up the timeline, but it's not really relevant to the argu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's right there in the Wikipedia article you linked to: Although it was developed under the name Mocha, the language was officially called LiveScript when it first shipped in beta releases of Netscape Navigator 2.0 in September 1995, but it was renamed JavaScript when it was deployed in the Netscape browser version 2.0B3. The change of name from LiveScript to JavaScript roughly coincided with Netscape adding support…
That's explains how LiveScript became Javascript but it doesn't answer the more interesting question: how did Netscape end up using a Sun trademark?
Apparently LiveScript was also originally planned to be more Lisp-like but then they went with C-like syntax because that was more popular at the time (see Java). And the entire language was cobbled together in a ridiculously short time frame (something like a couple of weeks?) and intended to be "beginner friendly", which is where a lot of the language's quirks come from.
Considering the original JS already contained the syntax Crockford would eventually define as JSON, you could say they managed to create not one but two languages at once. Say what you will about JS being a good language or not, but you have to respect that achievement.
Considering JS only became ECMAScript because Netscape was scared of incompatible copycats, you could argue JS as it is today wouldn't exist without Microsoft, too. Strange world, eh?
I ALWAYS had a feeling that something was off about "JavaScript". I hope Oracle does not decide to start suing everyone using JS like node.js...
JS is arguably a different trademark entirely from JavaScript.
I also like the JS logo and its variations. I'm assuming Oracle could lay no claim to that . . .