And Apache will not give up Open Office or kill the "project".
Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
51–60 of 90 posts
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#52Earlier 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).
Did they even have the trademark for those two. AFIK They got it in 2010 when they bought Sun.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#53Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#54Are they claiming that since they own the Java trademark that they can own the JavaScript trademark?
They own the JavaScript trademark, and Dahl/Deno were trying to get it released: Deno vs. Oracle: Canceling the JavaScript Trademark (185 points, 1 month ago, 27 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42239263 Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf] (107 points, 1 month ago, 84 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42323158 Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript (277 points, 3…
"Were" makes it sound like they're giving up, which they're very clearly not.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I’ve been using JavaScript since the first version in Netscape navigator. When I say JavaScript, that’s what I’m referring to. It may have had some things bolted on over the past quarter century, but I still think of it as that thing way back when.
Technically from a legal perspective you aren't using JavaScript any more because it's being produced by a company (Google, Apple, whoever) who doesn't own the trademark to call it JavaScript. So it legally isn't JavaScript even if it's directly descended from something that was legally JavaScript.
The fact that you and everyone else still call this thing we have now JavaScript is exactly why this trademark thing is stupid and most likely invalid.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#56In previous threads related to this topic, someone proposed just abandoning JavaScript and calling it simply JS.
This seems a brilliant solution for multiple reasons, arguably even better than Oracle withdrawal of the trademark (which will still leave us with the car vs. carpet problem).
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#57Sounds like GraalVM counts and Oracle intends to argue on that basis.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#58What 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…
I can't believe this is real. A US corporation that everyone knows making a video about their trademark and it's not corporate slop but well made, somewhat making fun of themselves even not shying away from "coarse" language? I kept on looking at the username because surely this had to be a parody.
Went to Wikipedia:
"Velcro is a *British privately held*" company".
Makes slightly more sense now, don't think it would have seen the light of day if either of those were different.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#59What 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.
> Whenever anyone says "JavaScript" they actually mean "ECMAScript", which is the language browsers and scripting engines actually implement.
It’s the exact opposite though. Whenever someone says ECMAScript they actually mean “I want to say JavaScript but for legal reasons I’m using another name for it” but that also happens so rarely that it’s not worth considering.
If I invent a new term for iPads and say “well actually when people say iPad they mean ECMApad which is technically the same just a different branding of it” that doesn’t give me grounds to have Apples trademark on iPad discarded.
Programmers may not like it, but JavaScript is a pretty well established and robust trademark and people use it correctly to refer to the same one thing. The problem really just is that people don’t like the owners of it, but that’s hardly a case to have it invalidated.
Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
#60What 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 Oracl…
People use the term iPad to refer to non Apple tablets as well. That’s not an argument against Apples trademark.
People may not like Oracle, but the arguments against them owning the trademark on the grounds that it’s used to refer to the thing that it actually is, are extemely weak. I can see the non-use argument being a viable path though.