6 ms·
Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark
- mproud 2y agoAre they claiming that since they own the Java trademark that they can own the JavaScript trademark?
- marcus0x62 2y agoNo, 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.
- mananaysiempre 2y agoAnd 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.
- marcus0x62 2y agoMaybe. 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 Netscape but controlling the underlying trademark.
- mananaysiempre 2y agoI mean, yes, it’s a reasonable thing for Sun to want, but I (also not a lawyer) don’t see how it’s within the USPTO’s purview to grant. Sun/Oracle can claim others’ use of “JavaScript” is confusing others with regard to what “Java” is—indeed as you say this seems to have been Netscape’s explicit intent with the name—but that means Sun/Oracle may have some control over the use of the term “JavaScript” through their very real dealings in Java, not their nonexistent ones in JavaScript. You don’t get to squat trademarks, you have to use them. (Unless you have enough money to outlast any challenger in a legal battle. I guess we’ll see how that goes.)
- throw646577 2y agoNetscape 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.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease67.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070916144913/https://wp.netsca... It was fully a partner decision. Also, f***. I am old.
- angled 2y agoThat press release and the list of partner companies are amazing. Marc Benioff was the listed press contact for Oracle!
- marcus0x62 2y agoOf course Sun was a willing participant. I didn't claim otherwise. Netscape wouldn't have been able to use the name without Sun's support.
- bawolff 2y agoOn 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.
- gnabgib 2y agoThey 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 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42323158 Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript (277 points, 3 months ago, 127 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41557383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41557383 JavaScript is a trademark owned by Oracle (157 points, 10 years ago, 82 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049
- lolinder 2y ago"Were" makes it sound like they're giving up, which they're very clearly not.
- trademark_ 2y agoThey must have read this counterpoint: https://mastodon.social/@trademark_/113732902163918914 https://mastodon.social/@trademark_/113732902163918914
- thayne 2y ago> Yet, few of the millions who program in it realize they have much better choices Oh, if only that were true. I wish there were better choices for web development. And no, transpiling another language to JavaScript doesn't count.
- timw4mail 2y agoHow many of those developers really use Javascript, and not a transpiling abomination?
- worik 2y agoWhat 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?
- duskwuff 2y ago> What are the grounds for invalidating the trademark? https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle TL;DR: Oracle has failed to defend the trademark, or even to use it in trade.
- pyuser583 2y agoIt’s being filed by the creator Node.js, so I don’t think “in browser scripting” is the proper category. The grounds are non-use. Oracle doesn’t actually offer a “JavaScript” product.
- gary_0 2y agoWhenever 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.
- irrational 2y agoI’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.
- lolinder 2y agoTechnically 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.
- mbreese 2y agoI expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…
- mananaysiempre 2y ago(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 does not deal in “JavaScript” any more than many many other companies and individuals do.
- mbreese 2y ago(Also not a lawyer) This is why I think Deno has a solid chance here. Sun may have filed for the trademark, but it’s not clear to me how much it has been used by Oracle. I also think this is why this step is likely the beginning of litigation, not the end. With Oracle not voluntarily withdrawing the trademark, it allows the rest of the process to invalidate the trademark to begin.
- arllk 2y agoThe 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/javascript/ https://www.graalvm.org/javascript/ (Not a lawyer, just a nerd observing terminology)
- giancarlostoro 2y agoThem 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.
- coding123 2y agoIsn't the entire point of the term ecmascript created to resolve this?
- fzzzy 2y agoBrendan Eich always used to say that ecmascript sounds like a skin disease.
- calibas 2y agoIt prevents Oracle from suing, but everybody calls it JavaScript anyway...
- that_guy_iain 2y agoAnd 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.
- nayuki 2y agoNor 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).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fortran77 2y agoWhat's wrong with everyone else calling it "ECMAScript?"
- aperrien 2y agoWhile descriptive, I'd think a catchier name might be in order. As a plus, that can be used to draw people away from any Oracle branding.
- worthless-trash 2y agoJust call it Browserscript, and be done with it. Call it what it is.
- nayuki 2y agoBut it's also Serverscript due to Node.js.
- thayne 2y agoOr Webscript
- jppope 2y agoScriptyJava?
- thiht 2y ago> Call it what it is NOT Browserscript then. JS moved beyond the browser almost 3 decades ago (rhino.jar, anyone?) and became mainstream on the server side almost a decade ago.
- worthless-trash 2y agoBut it hasn't.. its just a browser running headless on the server.
- thiht 2y ago
- p4ul 2y ago"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison." [1]. [1.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2308s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2308s
- indrora 2y ago"ORACLE: (n, abbr, nonstd.) One Rich Asshole called Larry Ellison."
- nayuki 2y ago> And by the way, and I've already fallen into this trap here, do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. Because if you--you need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawn mower. Lawnmower just does, like, mows the lawn. Like, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think like, oh the lawnmower hates me, lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Lawnmower--you don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower, don't fall into that trap about Oracle. > So, and in particular with open source, oh they wanted to kill OpenSolaris, like no, the lawnmower doesn't care about OpenSolaris. The lawnmower doesn't think about OpenSolaris, the lawnmower can't care about OpenSolaris. The lawnmower can't have empathy. (I listened to the speech and manually cleaned up YouTube's automatic transcription.)
- heresie-dabord 2y ago> you need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. If a large enough number of people thought this way, they would awaken one morning to find their garages or yard sheds surrounded by Oracle lawyers.
- bravetraveler 2y agoHave most not already, with HOAs?
- thayne 2y agoIs 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.
- dangus 2y agohttps://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
- 12_throw_away 2y ago> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630410
- happymellon 2y agoIs "billable time" a human concept? Thats what I see when people ask why a lawyer is wasting peoples time.
- timw4mail 2y agoOracle's gonna Oracle
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y agoWhy not just kill JavaScript during this opportunity?
- phkahler 2y agoAnd Apache will not give up Open Office or kill the "project".
- TiredOfLife 2y agoAt least with Oracle it is expected.
- theanonymousone 2y agoIn 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).
- sgammon 2y agoSounds like GraalVM counts and Oracle intends to argue on that basis.
- butz 2y agoLet's call it OracleScript and trademark it.
- Alifatisk 2y agoDoesn’t that conflict with Oracles brand?
- exabrial 2y agoIn my opinion, poking the sleeping fat bear is a dumb move, and a waste of money that is better spent funding individual contributors to important projects. The worst case is unbelievably bad: they start asserting it. I would leave the status quo as-is and go find other hobbies. Besides, the longer it goes on without a battle, the better the case is to revoke it. It's infinitely better to let the status quo ride.