4 ms·

I 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 ago
Well, good luck trying to enforce it... It's now a generic term for ECMAScript.
- neoromantique 12y ago
  Strictly speaking, JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript, not merely a generic term.
  - vicbrooker 12y ago
    IANAL, 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 ago
      People 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 ago
      It's the same. The issue is actual usage, not whatever meaning is correct.
Already__Taken 12y ago
JS is arguably a different trademark entirely from JavaScript.
- sramsay 12y ago
  I wondered about that. I would prefer it if we all started calling it JS (as many do), and pretended it stood for -- the language. Though I suppose we'd keep having to say "the language formerly known as JavaScript" in many contexts. I also like the JS logo and its variations. I'm assuming Oracle could lay no claim to that . . .
  - pluma 12y ago
    A lot of JS developers call it "ECMAScript" these days. A lot more frequently than, say, ten years ago. Mostly this is because we no longer care about JavaScript version numbers (I facepalmed when I saw a dropdown in JetBrains' WebStorm IDE that offered various "JavaScript 1.x" options as the language environment). Instead we only care about "ES 3", "ES 5" (i.e. ECMAScript 5.1) and "ES 6" (which frequently also refers to ES 7 and beyond). At the same time I see less and less references to "Harmony", probably because the spec that came out of it is now openly using a real version number. Of course the irony here is that what people often think of as "JS" these days is not actually Mozilla's JavaScript implementation but that of V8, as used in Chrome, node.js and other places (probably because V8 is relatively painless to embed).
jerf 12y ago
Oracle knows how to use the legal system to obtain money. It's one of their core competencies. If you know the history of Oracle, you know that's not sarcasm, it's just an observation. If they're not doing it now, it's because they (correctly) realize there's no chance they could make money with it, and I don't see that changing in the future. If they actually tried to sue someone for it, "JavaScript" would change to "ECMAScript" at the speed of "Find & Replace".
- pyvpx 12y ago
  can you suggest any further reading on oracles legal prowess in this regard? sounds like an interesting read to me, but I'm unsure where to find it.
  - troymc 12y ago
    Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-google/ http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-google/

TuringTest 12y ago

Well, good luck trying to enforce it... It's now a generic term for ECMAScript.

neoromantique 12y ago
Strictly speaking, JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript, not merely a generic term.
- vicbrooker 12y ago
  IANAL, 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 ago
    People 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 ago
    It's the same. The issue is actual usage, not whatever meaning is correct.

Already__Taken 12y ago

JS is arguably a different trademark entirely from JavaScript.

sramsay 12y ago
I wondered about that. I would prefer it if we all started calling it JS (as many do), and pretended it stood for -- the language. Though I suppose we'd keep having to say "the language formerly known as JavaScript" in many contexts. I also like the JS logo and its variations. I'm assuming Oracle could lay no claim to that . . .
- pluma 12y ago
  A lot of JS developers call it "ECMAScript" these days. A lot more frequently than, say, ten years ago. Mostly this is because we no longer care about JavaScript version numbers (I facepalmed when I saw a dropdown in JetBrains' WebStorm IDE that offered various "JavaScript 1.x" options as the language environment). Instead we only care about "ES 3", "ES 5" (i.e. ECMAScript 5.1) and "ES 6" (which frequently also refers to ES 7 and beyond). At the same time I see less and less references to "Harmony", probably because the spec that came out of it is now openly using a real version number. Of course the irony here is that what people often think of as "JS" these days is not actually Mozilla's JavaScript implementation but that of V8, as used in Chrome, node.js and other places (probably because V8 is relatively painless to embed).

jerf 12y ago

Oracle knows how to use the legal system to obtain money. It's one of their core competencies. If you know the history of Oracle, you know that's not sarcasm, it's just an observation. If they're not doing it now, it's because they (correctly) realize there's no chance they could make money with it, and I don't see that changing in the future. If they actually tried to sue someone for it, "JavaScript" would change to "ECMAScript" at the speed of "Find & Replace".

pyvpx 12y ago
can you suggest any further reading on oracles legal prowess in this regard? sounds like an interesting read to me, but I'm unsure where to find it.
- troymc 12y ago
  Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-google/ http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-google/