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

Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

deno.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#131

Post by 2d8a875f-39a2-4 »

Imagine you start a new OSS RDBMS project. To help drive adoption you license a trademark from Oracle and call it "OracleBase", even though it has nothing much in common with the well known Oracle database other than also being an RDBMS.

Despite not being objectively better than competitors OracleBase is wildly successful and basically takes over the OSS RDBMS space. Multiple other projects and vendors are building on your specs. A popular and extensive ecosystem develops around it. Many peoples careers are invested in its growth and success.

One day you wake up in a cold sweat, suddenly remembering that the old trademark you licensed years ago is still there, pointed at your cathedral like a nuclear missile, with Larry Ellison's finger on the trigger.

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#132

Post by [deleted] »

crabmusket wrote: post #120
krashidov wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a little more than a passion project since it's posted on the official deno blog. I don't think it's a net negative of a pursuit, but I follow the founder of bun on twitter and he just keeps shipping shit whereas the most I hear from Deno is this lawsuit. I'm not saying Deno doesn't have merits, I just wonder if this is the thing they should be focused on

> the most I hear from Deno is this lawsui Two days ago: https://deno.com/blog/jsr-open-governance-board Maybe don't trust your Twitter feed to be a balanced information diet. But yes, Bun's current strategy is "churn out code" whereas Deno has a different pace and approach. They're trying to build different things, and have a lot less catch-up to play than Bun.

[deleted]

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#133

Post by krashidov »

crabmusket wrote: post #120
krashidov wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a little more than a passion project since it's posted on the official deno blog. I don't think it's a net negative of a pursuit, but I follow the founder of bun on twitter and he just keeps shipping shit whereas the most I hear from Deno is this lawsuit. I'm not saying Deno doesn't have merits, I just wonder if this is the thing they should be focused on

> the most I hear from Deno is this lawsui Two days ago: https://deno.com/blog/jsr-open-governance-board Maybe don't trust your Twitter feed to be a balanced information diet. But yes, Bun's current strategy is "churn out code" whereas Deno has a different pace and approach. They're trying to build different things, and have a lot less catch-up to play than Bun.

> But yes, Bun's current strategy is "churn out code" whereas Deno has a different pace and approach. They're trying to build different things, and have a lot less catch-up to play than Bun.

Are they trying to build different things? I feel like they're direct competitors.

Are you a Deno user? Curious what your experience has been

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#134

Post by jonny_eh »

2d8a875f-39a2-4 wrote: post #131

Imagine you start a new OSS RDBMS project. To help drive adoption you license a trademark from Oracle and call it "OracleBase", even though it has nothing much in common with the well known Oracle database other than also being an RDBMS. Despite not being objectively better than competitors OracleBase is wildly successful and basically takes over the OSS RDBMS space. Multiple other projects and vendors are building o…

It's good that Oracle doesn't own the trademark to SQL.

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#135

Post by 0x7cfe »

2d8a875f-39a2-4 wrote: post #131

Imagine you start a new OSS RDBMS project. To help drive adoption you license a trademark from Oracle and call it "OracleBase", even though it has nothing much in common with the well known Oracle database other than also being an RDBMS. Despite not being objectively better than competitors OracleBase is wildly successful and basically takes over the OSS RDBMS space. Multiple other projects and vendors are building o…

Honestly, I don't feel that the name is _that_ important for a project of such scale and popularity. I mean, if they'd just rebrand JavaScript as JS, no one would probably notice. Many devs already call it like that, and probably not a single soul feels JS connection to Java anymore (not to mention, it wasn't there in the first place, but oh well).

Even bigger companies do rebranding sometimes.

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#136

Post by jonny_eh »

Etheryte wrote: post #41
toddmorey wrote: post #37

Hear me out: the web / oss community could absolutely band together and rebrand JavaScript. Could be: LiveScript, WebScript, etc. There would be good support and we could do it fairly swiftly. To hell with Oracle.

We could also rebrand it as Js and it would be the funniest thing ever. Few things would make me happier than seeing Oracle being screwed by something that's technically correct, but clearly nonsense to every living human being.

I saw someone recommend the JS rebrand years ago, so I just started using it. Everyone knows what I mean when I mention "JS", I never have to explain.

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#137

Post by jonny_eh »

toddmorey wrote: post #37

Hear me out: the web / oss community could absolutely band together and rebrand JavaScript. Could be: LiveScript, WebScript, etc. There would be good support and we could do it fairly swiftly. To hell with Oracle.

Hear me out: TypeScript

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#138

Post by jclulow »

cyberax wrote: post #109
ggm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to personify the mistaken belief "if a company can make money legally then it is obliged in law to do it, to maximise shareholder value" thing: Oracle is that company. There is only one goal. Immediate reporting cycle uptick benefit. There is no other goal. I can think of almost no play they have made in the market which has any longterm net beneficial outcome for the entire market, despite "grow a bigger…

Even during the darkest days, IBM made reliable unkillable overengineered stuff. Oracle has been making only lawsuits for a while.

Since at least the introduction of the DeWitt clause, if not earlier!

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#139

Post by crabmusket »

krashidov wrote: post #133
crabmusket wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the most I hear from Deno is this lawsui Two days ago: https://deno.com/blog/jsr-open-governance-board Maybe don't trust your Twitter feed to be a balanced information diet. But yes, Bun's current strategy is "churn out code" whereas Deno has a different pace and approach. They're trying to build different things, and have a lot less catch-up to play than Bun.

> But yes, Bun's current strategy is "churn out code" whereas Deno has a different pace and approach. They're trying to build different things, and have a lot less catch-up to play than Bun. Are they trying to build different things? I feel like they're direct competitors. Are you a Deno user? Curious what your experience has been

Well e.g. JSR is different to anything I've seen from the Bun team, so yes.

I didn't mean Deno and Bun's core offerings are different, but that there are differences in what they're each applying time and effort to.

I'm a Node user. I haven't yet seen a compelling reason to switch that justifies potential compatibility/ecosystem issues.

Re: Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

#140

Post by cafeinux »

rtpg wrote: post #123
LoganDark wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [0]: Again, I'm not paying for the lawyers or doing anything useful at all! It sucks that these kinds of disclaimers are necessary these days. I've also had more than my fair share of "you're not helping so you don't get to have an opinion"

The open thing is that the person doing the thing is allowed a greater say to strategy IMO.

> IMO

Well you're not helping so you're not entitled to that opinion.

Post reply on HN