7 ms·
JavaScript is a trademark owned by Oracle
- rocky1138 12y agoUnity3d gets around this by calling their adaptation UnityScript.
- Stratoscope 12y agoUnity is actually pretty inconsistent about their naming. In some parts of their docs they call it UnityScript: http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/CreatingAndUsingScripts.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/CreatingAndUsingScripts.html In other places they call it JavaScript: http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/ http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/ And in the Unity Editor when you use the Add Component / New Script, they call it "Java Script"! Everyone would be better served if Unity would call it UnityScript consistently, since as you mentioned, their language isn't JavaScript but is a fairly loose adaptation of it. It's more of a JavaScript-like language than real JavaScript.
- barkingcat 12y agoThat's why there's ECMAScript - the official name of the spec ... nothing new.
- greenyoda 12y agoWikipedia says: "Today, 'JavaScript' is a trademark of Oracle Corporation. It is used under license for technology invented and implemented by Netscape Communications and current entities such as the Mozilla Foundation." [1] It's one of a long list of Java-related trademarks originally registered by Sun: https://web.archive.org/web/20100528154600/http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/#J https://web.archive.org/web/20100528154600/http://www.sun.co... Maybe Sun originally intended it to be the name of a Java-related product, and when Netscape invented JavaScript, they found out too late that the name had already been trademarked by Sun, so they licensed the trademark from Sun instead of changing the name? I'm just guessing. Does anyone know the real history? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Trademark
- cygx 12y agoIt's right there in the Wikipedia article you linked to: Although it was developed under the name Mocha, the language was officially called LiveScript when it first shipped in beta releases of Netscape Navigator 2.0 in September 1995, but it was renamed JavaScript when it was deployed in the Netscape browser version 2.0B3. The change of name from LiveScript to JavaScript roughly coincided with Netscape adding support for Java technology in its Netscape Navigator web browser. The final choice of name caused confusion, giving the impression that the language was a spin-off of the Java programming language, and the choice has been characterized as a marketing ploy by Netscape to give JavaScript the cachet of what was then the hot new web programming language. It was a marketing thing.
- sambeau 12y agoThat's explains how LiveScript became Javascript but it doesn't answer the more interesting question: how did Netscape end up using a Sun trademark?
- pluma 12y agoAs I understand it from Crockford's retelling and what I've read on the web and heard in podcasts, Sun was concerned that LiveScript could be seen as a competitor to Java if both were present in the browser. Netscape wanted Java but wasn't willing to kill off their scripting language, so they agreed to name it JavaScript to make it sound like the two are related (and JS being "merely" a scripting language, people would still prefer Java for "real" programs). Apparently LiveScript was also originally planned to be more Lisp-like but then they went with C-like syntax because that was more popular at the time (see Java). And the entire language was cobbled together in a ridiculously short time frame (something like a couple of weeks?) and intended to be "beginner friendly", which is where a lot of the language's quirks come from. Considering the original JS already contained the syntax Crockford would eventually define as JSON, you could say they managed to create not one but two languages at once. Say what you will about JS being a good language or not, but you have to respect that achievement. Considering JS only became ECMAScript because Netscape was scared of incompatible copycats, you could argue JS as it is today wouldn't exist without Microsoft, too. Strange world, eh?
- brador 12y agoCan"t common use be used to nullify a trademark?
- jpkeisala 12y agoI don't think so.
- cpach 12y agoIt can. See e.g. http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/LossofTrademarkRightsFactSheet.aspx http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/LossofT...
- unclebunkers 12y agoAbsolutely, companies like Kimberly-Clark and Johnson& Johnson for Kleenex and Band-Aid dedicate millions to ensuring you understand a clear distinction between the name and what it is. Hence the Jingle "That's why I'm stuck on Band-Aid BRAND and Band-Aids stuck on me." Emphasis mine. When do you ever hear the word Brand in a jingle or marketing message outside the 60's?" Only when the product is in danger of loosing it's trademark due to common use (or crappy naming teams like the ones at Microsoft).
- ianlevesque 12y agoNothing to see here, everyone calls it ECMAScript.
- Stratoscope 12y agoI've been programming JavaScript professionally for ten years and have interacted with thousands of JavaScript developers online and offline. I have never once heard anyone call the language ECMAScript except when they were specifically referring to the ECMA-262 specification. Edit: After writing that I thought back, and now I do remember one time when somebody called the language ECMAScript when they weren't referring to the ECMA standard. I think this was the exception that proves the rule!
- silverwind 12y agoThis is far from the truth, unfortunately. We will get there eventually, but everyone has to do their part in removing JS from their vocabulary.
- _random_ 12y agoGiven the committee's track record, do you think they will manage to change script type= text/javascript by 2050, or it will take a bit longer than that?
- richbradshaw 12y agoYou don't need to specify the type on a script anyway if you are using ECMAScript/JS.
- Havvy 12y agoThat's a MIME type. Those don't get removed. They're also not necessary. The only reason to use the type attribute on the script element is to use a MIME type that isn't ECMAScript's so that the browser doesn't execute it as such.
- almost 12y agoBut ECMAScript is a mouthful to say and sounds a bit like a skin condition, I don't think that's ever going to become the common name people use for it.
- sreenadh 12y agoI ALWAYS had a feeling that something was off about "JavaScript". I hope Oracle does not decide to start suing everyone using JS like node.js...
- TuringTest 12y agoWell, good luck trying to enforce it... It's now a generic term for ECMAScript.
- neoromantique 12y agoStrictly speaking, JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript, not merely a generic term.
- vicbrooker 12y agoIANAL, but it will depend on whether JavaScript is used by members of the public to refer to ECMAScript that isn't JavaScript (that's a mouthful). In other words, I can call a fountain pen a biro and that shows that the trademark has become generic, it doesn't matter that I'm technically wrong. This is how it works in Commonwealth jurisdictions anyway, haven't checked US law for about a year.
- thaumasiotes 12y agoPeople generally bring up kleenex and xerox as the examples of trademarks lost to generic use (and someone upthread mentioned band-aid), but I think a more interesting example is coke. There are large regions of the US where "coke" is the general term for soda, so that the following invented example wouldn't raise eyebrows: A: Want a coke? B: Yes, a 7-up please. (Or at least, it wouldn't raise eyebrows for the implication that a 7-up is a kind of coke.) How is Coca-Cola dealing with this? Do they have a policy or a strategy?
- nknighthb 12y agoIt's the same. The issue is actual usage, not whatever meaning is correct.
- runn1ng 12y agoThey can always call it JScript.
- simplyinfinity 12y agoNope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript
- runn1ng 12y ago(I know, that was the joke.)
- morganvachon 12y agoDon't try to have a sense of humor on HN threads. You'll get modded into oblivion and have your joke disassembled and laid bare in an attempt to show how "unfunny" it might be. HN is serious business for serious people. Seriously.
- unclebunkers 12y agoEvery word you said is completely accurate, and yet you had me laughing out loud; been a while since I have.
- unclebunkers 12y agoAnd me getting downvoted just kinda proves that.
- shittyanalogy 12y agoUnder what circumstances would they be defending this trademark?
- giancarlostoro 12y agoUnless Oracle makes web browsers, I don't think under any circumstance. They'd be up against the internet itself (not an over-exaggeration), and any tech giant you could imagine. From Apple, Google, Microsoft, I think we're done here, not to mention Mozilla, yeah, not going to go over well. They may be money hungry, but they're not moronic.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jokoon 12y agoWell it's ridiculous, but if it can make ecmascript die, why not. /troll /rant
- janitor61 12y agoStart calling it PhpScript or LispScript; there would be no loss of accuracy.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- wwweston 12y agoArguably an increase of accuracy in either case. :/
- laumars 12y agoThis shouldn't be news to anyone who's old enough to remember the internet in the 90's. Back then Microsoft named their EMCAScript implementation "JScript" to avoid problems with Sun's trademark (I'm sure everyone on here is already aware that Oracle bought Sun a few years back). However I don't think this trademark is worth anything to Oracle any longer. Trademarks need to be defended or they're lost. This is why Wordpress have strict rules about how themes and related websites cannot contain the name "Wordpress"; and why you often see ridiculous cases about large companies sending scary legal notices to independent enterprises but then quietly settling out of court for token licence fees like £100 a year. Javascript has long since entered the public domain so I suspect it's too late for Oracle to capitalise on their acquired trademark.
- jameshart 12y agoLet's be careful with terminology here. I'm (also) not an IP lawyer, but as I understand it your use of the term 'public domain' here is inappropriate. If you're arguing that JavaScript has become genericized - on the basis, presumably, that there are multiple institutions making available various implementations of JavaScript without acknowledging or licensing Oracle's trademark - I'm not sure that's correct, and typically that would only be settled in a legal case. Certainly, Google, for example, publishes V8 and describes it as a "JavaScript Engine" - and makes no trademark acknowledgement toward Oracle that I can see; if Oracle wanted to they could probably attempt to enforce their trademark rights there. Mozilla, who distribute SpiderMonkey as a "JavaScript Engine", acknowledge the trademark (though they still attribute it to Sun). Oracle's failure to continually distribute any product which makes use of their trademark might count against them, but if they wished to argue that Mozilla has continually exercised Netscape's exclusive right to use the trademark, they might be able to get a sympathetic judge to rule Google out of order for claiming V8 is 'JavaScript'. Without a legal ruling, the situation's not clearcut.
- chc 12y agoWhat's inappropriate about saying a term that is in wide, generic usage is in the public domain?
- ChuckMcM 12y agoAmongst many other trademarks. The one that irritates me is that we really really wanted to call the browser "Webrunner" and at the last moment of trademark clearance we heard that Taligent (the Apple/IBM thing) had already gotten it. I still have the jacket where we had the stitching done [1]. So we ended up calling it HotJava. Sigh. [1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChuckMcManis/posts/hdvbvWCvbuY https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChuckMcManis/posts/hdvbvWCvbuY