[worik]

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?

[gary_0]

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.

[gklitz]

> 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.

[LelouBil]

> 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.

[orf]

> and people use it correctly to refer to the same one thing.

Yes, ECMAScript, standardized here: https://ecma-international.org/publications-and-standards/st...

[EMM_386]

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.

[irrational]

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]

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.

[pyuser583]

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.

[thayne]

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]

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.

[svrtknst]

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?

[thayne]

> 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.

[cosmotic]

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

[maeil]

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.

[Stratoscope]

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...

[duskwuff]

> 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.