5 ms·
> I'm surprised that "JavaScript" has not become a generic trademark If Kleenex = Java and Kleenex Dispenser = javascript, your argument is wrong.
by rootlocus 8y ago
> I'm surprised that "JavaScript" has not become a generic trademark
If Kleenex = Java and Kleenex Dispenser = javascript, your argument is wrong.
- johndough 8y agoI think the argument is Kleenex = javascript and "Kleenex Dispenser" = "HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, HTML, Snippet Editor": https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/8d0bg2/oracle_owns_javascript_so_apple_is_taking_down_my/dxjz82f/ https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/8d0bg2/oracle_o...
- Brian_K_White 8y agoHis argument is valid. You are correcting something he never said. Kleenex = JavaScript Kranky Kim's Kleenex Keeper = Blue Mountain JavaScript Percolator Kleenex is probably a bad example, because Kleenex has actually defended their trademark. At least I don't think Kranky Kim could actually use Kleenex in her product name. I think the legal argument for the genericized meaning of "javascript" is valid and could be argued, in that you ciuld show that it's reasonable for anyone to think it was merely a noun and not a trademark. But the argument would take more years and money than any individual developer has. Which begs the question: Is there any such thing as a class action but for defense instead of lawsuit? Oracle could snuff out a million app developers individually without ever even having to so much as appear once in court. Just send these letters. But could a million developers act as a class in a defense the way they could in an action?