[bruce511]

I feel like this isn't a problem that needs solving.

The existence of a trademark doesn't prevent you using that trademark (as in referencing it like "this app is written in JavaScript".)

Clearly Oracle is not defending the trademark, and it is likely its too late to start. Worst case they pick on you, you change your docs to say Ecmascript.

Frankly it's safer where it is, than being released so the USPO or something can issue it to someone else.

A bigger intrinsic problem is lay-programmers confusing JavaScript with Java, and unfortunately there's no fixing that.

[russellbeattie]

Well... Oracle is lead by the most ruthless, unethical, Machiavellian business person in tech and his devoted acolytes. They probably don't gaf. But it wouldn't surprise me for Oracle to decide on some last minute resurrection of the brand and start legal armageddon. (In fact, calling attention to the situation is probably the worst thing to do...)

That said, my guess is all they really want is for it to be a zero cost pain in the ass for Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.

(Yes... You youngsters might think Bezos or Zuck might be gunning for that title, but they got nothing on ol' Larry. He's evil incarnate. There's reasons those other two are always in the news and Ellison is not. Think about it. Pure evil.)

[threeseed]

a) Calling a person evil should be reserved for those that commit truly heinous acts. Not simply being a tough, shrewd businessman in an industry where you need to be.

b) Oracle's CEO is Safra Katz and has been for a while now. And pretty sure she has a lot more on her plate to worry about i.e. existential threat of AWS/Azure/GCP than fighting some meaningless lawsuit.

[still_grokking]

Wait, but isn't Oracle the company that had actually patented meaningless lawsuits?

Also there are those rumors, that they have 10 managers per developer, and 50 lawyers per manager.

Who knows, maybe Oracle enjoys suing people?

[josefx]

> shrewd businessman in an industry where you need to be.

Let me put it that way, if he was only as shrewd as "needed" he wouldn't be sitting there with billions to his name. Every billionaire is driving a wealth distribution that makes the lives of millions of people worse.

[nickserv]

It's just a game they play among themselves, 10 points for every million dollars. Nothing really wrong with it, I'm sure lots would play the same way.

Really the problem is in government for failing to do its job of protecting the public.

[simonh]

Yet somehow people like this manage to employ and fund the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people, established an ecosystem of skilled engineers, and deliver products that run huge swathes of the economy. I’m no particular fan of Ellison, but I’ve worked for a billionaire when he made his money, Mo Ibrahim. Just the nicest guy. His technical smarts and business sense helped launch a key stage in my career and I’ll always be grateful. He deserved every penny he made and everyone I know that worked for any of his companies, and his customers, did very well out of his hard work.

How many careers have you supported? How many products did you conceive and design that transformed an industry? How many families were fed and clothed by wages from your companies? I doubt you’ve done as much good for as many people in your whole life as Mo Ibrahim did in a day at the office. Now he’s off working to transform political culture in Africa.

[jackblemming]

My friend you need to get a grip. Mo Ibrahim employs people because he makes money off of them; not because he's a saint. Your phrasing makes it sound like Walmart employees should be licking the Walmart brothers boots for the opportunity to make them money.

Billionaires become billionaires by setting up systems and collecting rent. That's it. Whether that's good or bad is a different topic.

[simonh]

All I'm saying is that a system without leaders that have creativity and vision would be a poor thing. Ultimately the question is, who should be in charge of allocating resources. There's a major role for government but I think largely, but not exclusively, it should be private citizens that have demonstrated their ability to start and run businesses and create jobs and products. If you think it should be someone else, you're free to suggest an alternative.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Depends on the system.

[russellbeattie]

Like trying to overthrow the government? Maybe secretly funding an insurrection? Don't mean to get political, as I was being hyperbolic for humor on a Saturday night, but you did demand proof.*

This crosses the line from "shrewd businessman" into the evil area. What's wonderful is when Larry's buddy Lindsey gets indicted, he's going to sing like a canary, and Ellison is going to finally get his just rewards. (LOL, just kidding. He's a billionaire.)

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/larry-ell...

[machinawhite]

a) I don't think you get to define words for us all

[threeseed]

I must have missed the part where I was hired to define words for humanity.

I was just offering my opinion that there are people on this planet who have caused unspeakable misery not just genocide but industrialised misery. And that throwing around the term evil to apply to a tough and unquestionably unethical businessman devalues it.

[machinawhite]

Well and in my opinion evil is not boolean attribute but a spectrum so I don't see how it doesn't apply to both?

[kaba0]

Every big enough company will have absolutely zero moral and is simply a profit-maximizer AI. Any statement regarding ethics/morals/social issues is simply the result of a pro-contra table anticipating bigger profit from doing so than against.

[jillesvangurp]

Exactly, if you don't defend your trademark, you don't effectively have one. It's not enough to have a trademark registered. You have to actively go after people when they infringe. It's not optional. You can't be selective about it either. Oracle has not done that.

There are countless examples of people using the javascript name, incorporating it in books, articles, products, derivative works, etc. So, effectively the trademark has not been defended for decades. All fine with Oracle apparently. They never objected or sent any cease and desist letters. Oracle would not stand a chance in a court trying to enforce it now.

[drdec]

> Oracle would not stand a chance in a court trying to enforce it now.

Assuming that is true (IANAL), do you want to be on the other end of that lawsuit, wasting your time and money?

[kristiandupont]

I agree.

>Careful law abiding engineers bend over backwards to avoid its use

..do they really? It never occurred to me but maybe I don't qualify as careful and law abiding.

[derefr]

It’d probably only be something that’d be relevant to worry about in e.g. technical documentation that ships with a commercial product. That’s the sort of use-case where I’d be worrying about what IP (including trademarks) are being referenced.