3 ms·

I 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, JavaScri

I 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Them 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.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    not sure if this is why they do it, but trademark law requires you to have a generic name for your product. "Kleenex brand facial tissue" not having and using a generic name creates the danger of people attaching your trademarked name as the generic and you might lose your trademark.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  Not only that, but other company's not-technically-javascript products are widely known as JavaScript. And have been for close to 3 decades now (Microsoft's JScript was released in 1996)
- jongjong 2y ago
  Haha yeah, in my experience, they use less JavaScript than most tech companies out there. Their image is very enterprisey, so Java, C... You don't think of JavaScript when you think of Oracle.
- wodenokoto 2y ago
  Oracle has a pretty strong claim on Java, and JavaScript was named after Java explicitly to piggy-back on the that names recognition and success. It’s bit like saying McDonald’s shouldn’t have trademark claims on “McDonald’s carbonara” because they don’t deal in Italian cuisine (that much)
  - extraduder_ire 2y ago
    Or like saying McDonald's shouldn't have a trademark on "Big Mac" outside of beef burgers, because they don't regularly deal in "Big Macs" made out of chicken.
  - foolswisdom 2y ago
    The relationship between those two things is more like the relationship between burgers and fries, two things that some people may think belong together, but having a claim on one surely has connection to having a claim on the other.
pdpi 2y ago
> On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. It seems to me that it's the exact opposite of that: It's been so thoroughly genericised that it might as well not exist as a trademark. Also, I couldn't even tell you of a single product Oracle sells that uses the mark.

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 ago
The 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 ago
  Them 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.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  not sure if this is why they do it, but trademark law requires you to have a generic name for your product. "Kleenex brand facial tissue" not having and using a generic name creates the danger of people attaching your trademarked name as the generic and you might lose your trademark.
nicoburns 2y ago
Not only that, but other company's not-technically-javascript products are widely known as JavaScript. And have been for close to 3 decades now (Microsoft's JScript was released in 1996)
jongjong 2y ago
Haha yeah, in my experience, they use less JavaScript than most tech companies out there. Their image is very enterprisey, so Java, C... You don't think of JavaScript when you think of Oracle.
wodenokoto 2y ago
Oracle has a pretty strong claim on Java, and JavaScript was named after Java explicitly to piggy-back on the that names recognition and success. It’s bit like saying McDonald’s shouldn’t have trademark claims on “McDonald’s carbonara” because they don’t deal in Italian cuisine (that much)
- extraduder_ire 2y ago
  Or like saying McDonald's shouldn't have a trademark on "Big Mac" outside of beef burgers, because they don't regularly deal in "Big Macs" made out of chicken.
- foolswisdom 2y ago
  The relationship between those two things is more like the relationship between burgers and fries, two things that some people may think belong together, but having a claim on one surely has connection to having a claim on the other.

pdpi 2y ago

> On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. It seems to me that it's the exact opposite of that: It's been so thoroughly genericised that it might as well not exist as a trademark. Also, I couldn't even tell you of a single product Oracle sells that uses the mark.