Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

154 points by cfnewsperson1 3 days ago | 86 comments

mproud 3 days ago |
Are they claiming that since they own the Java trademark that they can own the JavaScript trademark?
marcus0x62 3 days ago |
No, 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 3 days ago |
And 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 3 days ago |
Maybe. 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 3 days ago |
I 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 3 days ago |
Netscape 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.netsca...
It was fully a partner decision.
Also, f***. I am old.
angled 3 days ago |
That press release and the list of partner companies are amazing. Marc Benioff was the listed press contact for Oracle!
marcus0x62 2 days ago |
Of 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 3 days ago |
On 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 3 days ago |
They 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
Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf] (107 points, 1 month ago, 84 comments) 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
JavaScript is a trademark owned by Oracle (157 points, 10 years ago, 82 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049
lolinder 3 days ago |
"Were" makes it sound like they're giving up, which they're very clearly not.
trademark_ 3 days ago |
They must have read this counterpoint: https://mastodon.social/@trademark_/113732902163918914
thayne 3 days 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 2 days ago |
How many of those developers really use Javascript, and not a transpiling abomination?
worik 3 days ago |
What 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 3 days ago |
> What are the grounds for invalidating the trademark?
https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle
TL;DR: Oracle has failed to defend the trademark, or even to use it in trade.
pyuser583 3 days ago |
It’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 3 days ago |
Whenever 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 3 days ago |
I’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 3 days ago |
Technically 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.
gklitz 3 days ago |
> Whenever anyone says "JavaScript" they actually mean "ECMAScript", which is the language browsers and scripting engines actually implement.
It’s the exact opposite though. Whenever someone says ECMAScript they actually mean “I want to say JavaScript but for legal reasons I’m using another name for it” but that also happens so rarely that it’s not worth considering.
If I invent a new term for iPads and say “well actually when people say iPad they mean ECMApad which is technically the same just a different branding of it” that doesn’t give me grounds to have Apples trademark on iPad discarded.
Programmers may not like it, but JavaScript is a pretty well established and robust trademark and people use it correctly to refer to the same one thing. The problem really just is that people don’t like the owners of it, but that’s hardly a case to have it invalidated.
orf 3 days ago |
> and people use it correctly to refer to the same one thing.
Yes, ECMAScript, standardized here: https://ecma-international.org/publications-and-standards/st...
LelouBil 2 days ago |
> I invent a new term for iPads and say “well actually when people say iPad they mean ECMApad which is technically the same just a different branding of it” that doesn’t give me grounds to have Apples trademark on iPad discarded.
The point of a trademark is to protect Your brand.
Oracle doesn't make any product called JavaScript nor do they use JavaScript as a trademark in anything.
Your example with Apple is wrong because Apple makes devices that they call iPads.
EMM_386 3 days ago |
I had ECMAScript on my resume (as JavaScript/ECMAScript) and a technical recruiter asked me what that was.
"Oh, I've never heard of ECMAScript before".
Well, it's a thing. You'll have to trust me on that one.
cosmotic 3 days ago |
JavaScript can refer to many different similar languages, the runtimes, the standard library, etc.
People using JavaScript without getting permission are potentially infringing on Oracle's trademark. Many companies with trademarks tenaciously defend the trademark to protect it from being revoked. This doesn't appear to be the case with JavaScript. After usage becomes widespread, a company risks losing their trademark because they did not actively enforce the use of the trademark.
This video explains it from Velcro's perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY
Stratoscope 3 days ago |
That is one of my favorite videos!
Content advisory: there is one swear word in it that is bleeped out.
Near the end they mention some other trademarks, and adding to the fun they bleep out those too - and even put CENSORED overlays on the singers' mouths.
They also made a followup video that is just as delightful (and slightly more NSFW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWMQLMiTPk
And here is a fun article about some other companies' friendly alternatives to the traditional C&D letter:
https://www.cll.com/OnMyMindBlog/creativity-can-make-tradema...
maeil 3 days ago |
I can't believe this is real. A US corporation that everyone knows making a video about their trademark and it's not corporate slop but well made, somewhat making fun of themselves even not shying away from "coarse" language? I kept on looking at the username because surely this had to be a parody.
Went to Wikipedia:
"Velcro is a *British privately held*" company".
Makes slightly more sense now, don't think it would have seen the light of day if either of those were different.
thayne 3 days ago |
JavaScript can refer to the standard specification of ECMAScript, as well as the many implementations notably including v8 (chromium, node, deno), JavaScriptCore (webkit), and spidermonkey (Firefox), as well as some lesser known ones like duktape and QuickJS. And it can also be used to refer to an ECMAScript implementation plus an additional runtime platform like the Web API, or something like node or deno.
And Oracle doesn't control any of that. The only thing I know of that Oracle has related to JavaScript is Graal.js, which is just yet another implementation of ECMAScript, and didn't even exist for most of the time Sun and Oracle held the trademark.
gklitz 3 days ago |
People use the term iPad to refer to non Apple tablets as well. That’s not an argument against Apples trademark.
People may not like Oracle, but the arguments against them owning the trademark on the grounds that it’s used to refer to the thing that it actually is, are extemely weak. I can see the non-use argument being a viable path though.
thayne 3 days ago |
> People use the term iPad to refer to non Apple tablets as well. That’s not an argument against Apples trademark.
IANAL, but my understanding is that it actually is, if it becomes common enough, and Apple doesn't try to prevent such usage of the term. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark.
svrtknst a day ago |
What "is" JavaScript then? It's not the language specification (that's ECMAScript) and it's not the interpreters (that's Node, Deno, Bun, V8, Spidermonkey…), so what... is it?
And to follow up - how does Oracle use "JavaScript" in trade?
mbreese 3 days ago |
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 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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/
(Not a lawyer, just a nerd observing terminology)
giancarlostoro 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days 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)
foolswisdom 2 days 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.
extraduder_ire 2 days 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.
pdpi 3 days 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.
coding123 3 days ago |
Isn't the entire point of the term ecmascript created to resolve this?
fzzzy 3 days ago |
Brendan Eich always used to say that ecmascript sounds like a skin disease.
troymc 3 days ago |
Not to be confused with EczemaScript or AcneScript.
evanmoran 2 days ago |
It sounds like you’ve come down with the elusive humor monad. To prevent state mutation be sure to bind once a day with OCaml:
https://ocaml.org/docs/monads
calibas 3 days ago |
It prevents Oracle from suing, but everybody calls it JavaScript anyway...
that_guy_iain 3 days ago |
And 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 3 days ago |
Nor 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).
bawolff 3 days ago |
I don't see any reason why that would matter. The name "actionscript" does not have the word "java" in it.
The relavent part is they didn't sue anyone using the name "javascript". Even if they had a valid trademark (which i doubt) that doesn't prevent anyone from selling a similar product under a different name.
nayuki 3 days ago |
I was replying to that_guy_iain, who pointed out that Oracle didn't sue Microsoft for TypeScript. Notice that TypeScript does not have the word "Java" in it either.
that_guy_iain 3 days ago |
Did they even have the trademark for those two. AFIK They got it in 2010 when they bought Sun.
anthk 3 days ago |
There's are tons of libre licensed Java JVM's which names related to coffee.
graemep 3 days ago |
Which is evidence that Javascript is now a generic term.
paxys 3 days ago |
Ecmascript was coined by ECMA International when they published the JS standard just to cover their ass and not get sued by Sun. It was never intended to be a name for the language, and has never been treated as such.
BrendanEich 35 minutes ago |
That's right -- Sun refused to donate the JavaScript tm to ECMA (now Ecma), MS jumped in and offered "JScript" which no one wanted, so the standard ended up with the ECMAScript name (still five first letters all capitalized), which also no one wanted.
fortran77 3 days ago |
What's wrong with everyone else calling it "ECMAScript?"
aperrien 3 days ago |
While 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 3 days ago |
Just call it Browserscript, and be done with it. Call it what it is.
nayuki 3 days ago |
But it's also Serverscript due to Node.js.
thayne 3 days ago |
Or Webscript
jppope 3 days ago |
ScriptyJava?
thiht 3 days 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 2 days ago |
But it hasn't.. its just a browser running headless on the server.
thiht 2 days ago |
You’re confused, what you have in mind is Electron. NodeJS et al. use a JS engine, not a browser engine. NodeJS does not have DOM rendering or even parsing for instance.
physicles 2 days ago |
ScriptyScript
nayuki 2 days ago |
Scripty McScriptface
p4ul 3 days ago |
"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison." [1].
[1.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2308s
nayuki 3 days 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 3 days 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 2 days ago |
Have most not already, with HOAs?
indrora 2 days ago |
"ORACLE: (n, abbr, nonstd.) One Rich Asshole called Larry Ellison."
thayne 3 days ago |
Is 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 3 days ago |
https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
12_throw_away 3 days 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
happymellon 2 days ago |
Is "billable time" a human concept? Thats what I see when people ask why a lawyer is wasting peoples time.
timw4mail 2 days ago |
Oracle's gonna Oracle
ilrwbwrkhv 3 days ago |
Why not just kill JavaScript during this opportunity?
phkahler 3 days ago |
And Apache will not give up Open Office or kill the "project".
TiredOfLife 3 days ago |
At least with Oracle it is expected.
theanonymousone 3 days ago |
In 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 3 days ago |
Sounds like GraalVM counts and Oracle intends to argue on that basis.
butz 2 days ago |
Let's call it OracleScript and trademark it.
Alifatisk 9 hours ago |
Doesn’t that conflict with Oracles brand?
exabrial 2 days ago |
In 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.