> The petition to the USPTO also accuses Oracle of committing fraud in 2019 in its renewal efforts for the trademark by submitting screen captures of the Node.js website. “Node.js is not affiliated with Oracle, and the use of screen captures of the ‘nodejs.org’ website as a specimen did not show any use of the mark by Oracle or on behalf of Oracle,” the petition states."
> 1995 - Brendan Eich reads up on every mistake ever made in designing a programming language, invents a few more, and creates LiveScript. Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.
> Dahl said Oracle’s ownership “has caused confusion and unnecessary barriers, including cease-and-desist letters sent to organizations for simply using the term ‘JavaScript’ in their names.” The USPTO filing marks a pivotal step toward freeing the JavaScript name from legal entanglements, Dahl said.
That's probably the right thing to do, but "Javascipt" was always a terrible name for it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Java. It was just an early bit of dotcom marketing. They had aspirations of getting the two to work together, but they gave up on that almost immediately.
For a while, Google would conflate Java and Javascript when searching. That was really aggravating.
"ECMAScript" isn't a great name, either, but it at least doesn't confuse people. Personally, I liked "Livescript" as a name.
This is great, I think this has an excellent chance.
The biggest argument Oracle would have is GraalVM but that supports primarily Java and many other languages. I'm not even sure that Oracle at this point would want to conflate Javascript and Java. (Which may be why they haven't cited GraalVM as a use of the JS mark in commerce in their trademark filings).
No, it wouldn't. Simple use of JavaScript somewhere isn't enough for this.
Oracle would need to show vigorous trademark enforcement. I use 'JavaScript' generically, with no reference to Oracle or a trademark, and have never heard from an Oracle lawyer. I had no idea who the current owner of the trademark was.
I bet 95% of people who use the term have no idea it has any connection to Oracle's legal department.
At this point, there are probably millions of .js files out there. If Oracle wished to enforce all of these moving to .es for ECMAScript, they would have needed to start that process a long, long time ago.
Oracle's own documentation uses this term generically:
> Just a single example of "Javascript" written on a spec sheet of some product would be enough to defend the trademark.
Is that really true? Doesn’t it have to be used as a trademark? If they just mention the programming language in generic terms rather than as something specifically owned and sold by Oracle, would that really be enough? That’s exactly what you would expect from a generic term - that it would be used generically.
> The petition to the USPTO also accuses Oracle of committing fraud in 2019 in its renewal efforts for the trademark by submitting screen captures of the Node.js website. “Node.js is not affiliated with Oracle, and the use of screen captures of the ‘nodejs.org’ website as a specimen did not show any use of the mark by Oracle or on behalf of Oracle,” the petition states."
From http://www.nerdware.org/doc/abriefhistory.html
> 1995 - Brendan Eich reads up on every mistake ever made in designing a programming language, invents a few more, and creates LiveScript. Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.
Engaging in legal dispute with Oracle seems like a risky endeavor. People joke about the company consisting from 90% legal department for a reason.
What would the plaintiff or the public stand to gain from Oracle relinquishing the trademark?
TFA:
> Dahl said Oracle’s ownership “has caused confusion and unnecessary barriers, including cease-and-desist letters sent to organizations for simply using the term ‘JavaScript’ in their names.” The USPTO filing marks a pivotal step toward freeing the JavaScript name from legal entanglements, Dahl said.
I can't see the plaintiff gaining anything really. Maybe he's just fed up and decided to do something about it.
That's probably the right thing to do, but "Javascipt" was always a terrible name for it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Java. It was just an early bit of dotcom marketing. They had aspirations of getting the two to work together, but they gave up on that almost immediately.
For a while, Google would conflate Java and Javascript when searching. That was really aggravating.
"ECMAScript" isn't a great name, either, but it at least doesn't confuse people. Personally, I liked "Livescript" as a name.
browserscript, since that's where it originated, even though it's outgrown that.
Lets just call it scriptscript and move on :)
I misread that as "Superscript" and rather like it
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42239263
This is great, I think this has an excellent chance.
The biggest argument Oracle would have is GraalVM but that supports primarily Java and many other languages. I'm not even sure that Oracle at this point would want to conflate Javascript and Java. (Which may be why they haven't cited GraalVM as a use of the JS mark in commerce in their trademark filings).
Here's a recent podcast episode chapter where the author of the original petition talks out the argument, https://changelog.com/jsparty/340#t=3409.
JavaScript is a common name, shouldn't be trademarked
Wow, TIL "JavaScript" is a trademark. I'm sure it's unenforceable now due to the term becoming ubiquituous.
> has not sold any JavaScript goods or rendered any JavaScript services since acquiring the trademark from Sun Microsystems in 2009.
I find this hard to believe.
Somewhere in the 159,000 employees of Oracle, someone has made and sold some product using the javascript brand.
Just a single example of "Javascript" written on a spec sheet of some product would be enough to defend the trademark.
No, it wouldn't. Simple use of JavaScript somewhere isn't enough for this.
Oracle would need to show vigorous trademark enforcement. I use 'JavaScript' generically, with no reference to Oracle or a trademark, and have never heard from an Oracle lawyer. I had no idea who the current owner of the trademark was.
I bet 95% of people who use the term have no idea it has any connection to Oracle's legal department.
At this point, there are probably millions of .js files out there. If Oracle wished to enforce all of these moving to .es for ECMAScript, they would have needed to start that process a long, long time ago.
Oracle's own documentation uses this term generically:
https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/apex/22.1/aexjs/t...
To the contrary, a use like this doesn't support the trademark, but pretty much invalidates it entirely.
> Just a single example of "Javascript" written on a spec sheet of some product would be enough to defend the trademark.
Is that really true? Doesn’t it have to be used as a trademark? If they just mention the programming language in generic terms rather than as something specifically owned and sold by Oracle, would that really be enough? That’s exactly what you would expect from a generic term - that it would be used generically.