Oracle urged again to give up JavaScript trademark

JavaScript luminaries and at least 2,500 other interested parties have again asked Oracle to set the programming language free by walking away from the trademark for its name. Oracle controls the JavaScript trademark because in 2009 it acquired Sun Microsystems, which applied to trademark the name with the US Patent and …

[mark l 2]

I would just give up on the term Javascript and rename it to something else rather than trying to persuade Oracle of all companies to do something that isn't for the benefit of their bank balance.

The fact that the Rust for Javascript people got a cease and desist letter shows that Oracle probably intends to keep the TM until they need to raise some cash then they can start the sueballs for TM infringement.

[Crypto Monad]

This, exactly. Renaming software projects has happened many times in the past.

You just need the next JS conference to solicit ideas for the new language name, have a vote, and abandon the old name forever.

I will vote for SMSF (Scripty McScriptFace)

[Crypto Monad]

(forgot to say: ECMAScript is a rubbish name, so ignore that one)

[heyrick]

How about FuckLarry? He can be immortalised in the best possible way...

"Dammit, this FuckLarry keeps crashing, I'm going to call up the FuckLarry console and see what the hell is going on with this FuckLarry code."

[Bill Neal]

Fork name

or LibreScript

It worked for the office suite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Fork name

Open script?

[TheWeetabix]

“… a customer called. Said their FuckLarry keeps throwing an uncaught Oracle. He has a PR for us already…”

[Roopee]

How about ForkLarry...

Probably an understandable reference by the majority of devs and much more likely to gain official approval. Would definitely get my vote.

Mine’s the one with a copy of the Ruby Pickaxe in the pocket for bedtime reading...

[Michael Strorm]

As far as I'm aware, ECMAScript is itself a trademark, so that's out of the frying pan and into the fire anyway...

Besides which, doesn't "ECMAScript" always tend to refer to the ECMAScript standards rather than any specific implementation of them?

[Rich 2]

How about “ShitScript”? It would be very descriptive

[John Brown (no body)]

"You just need the next JS conference"

It's already a solved "problem" as described above. Everybody just calls it JS and context does the rest. Everyone who matters or cares will know.

[Roopee]

Keep the initials

Since it is widely known as JS, how about JustShite? Not that I think JavaScript is bad (other opinions are available), but there are several better languages commonly used for the backend that could be used for the front end too if browsers decided to support them - Ruby, Python, PHP...

Now that would f**k Larry :)

[awol]

What's voting for your Self Managed Superannuation Fund got to do with JavaScript renaming?

[Lennart Sorensen]

Well we could use ECMAScript like the standard is called, or go back the LiveScript as it was named before someone decided Java looked like the cool new thing and decided they needed to get in on that.

Or if we want to stick to .js I guess we could call it jokescript or jerkscript (in honour of Oracle of course).

[bazza]

The cease and desist for Rust for Javascript is just normal trademark preservation. You have to actively defend trademarks (through such means), otherwise you lose them. From what I've seen in general (not these specific Oracle ones), such "casual" usage of a trademark often results in a cease and desist letter that goes on to say that if you officially ask then official permission can be granted on a strictly limited (and probably zero-cost) basis. That's all that's needed to maintain ownership of the trademark.

Similarly, if there's been a long-running status quo with Oracle issuing just enough cease/desist/ask letters to maintain their ownership of the trademark, that does rather become a precedent that would be significant were Oracle to suddenly get all hard-nosed and chase every single example for $millions. A Judge may well think that, if Oracle had been content to go without claiming untold $millions for infringements for a couple of decades, it'd be hard for Oracle to justify why the trademark were now suddenly worth millions. The apparent monetary importance is evidently very low - as demonstrated by Oracle's complete lack of rigorous pursuit and previous awards of damages - and so any damages awarded for infringement wouldn't be very high (if anything). Or at least, that's my untutored logic.

The trouble with JavaScript(TM) is that - being so similar to Java(TM) - is that if Oracle let the former go undefended, or gave it away, they're basically also giving away the latter, and they really can't afford that.

Calling it JavaScript was not a great idea in the first place. Sun got there first with Java, and Netscape giving a totally different language more or less an identical name was never going to do anyone any favours whatsoever.

[TheWeetabix]

Chaiscript/Chailang

Thats my vote!

(Chai as in tea)

[C R Mudgeon]

DIMScript, for "Dog In Manger", which is how it seems Oracle is behaving.

[Grunchy]

Jollyscript

I can get behind it, why can’t you?

(Not the Rancher; more the Roger).

[Blank Reg]

I wish we could just give up on javascript entirely

[Ian 55]

The best bit of the article

The guy saying that it'll be around for five years and only maybe longer.

[Blank Reg]

Re: The best bit of the article

I doubt we'll be that lucky, we may be stuck with that abomination for decades more

[Anonymous Coward]

JavaScript was a stupid name for it anyway. It was bound to casually confusion with Java.

[David Austin]

I don't want to live in a world where the Flappy Bird trademark is forcibly taken, and oracle can squat on the JavaScript trademark for as long as they like, but I'm expecting that to be the end result of this story.

[TVU]

I expect that the Oracle will squat on the JavaScript trademark for two reasons:

1. Just in case they can squeeze out some $$$ at some time in the future;

2. To deliberately spite everyone else (because they can).

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: deliberate spite

Why is it spite to retain an important property, one that you not only paid for and therefore own legally but can potentially make you income, because a group of users wish your property to become community owned?

Would you give up your house if the neighbors signed hundreds of petitions saying that you should give up your property, without a pence of compensation, so they can build a playground and local garden, just because? If not, why is this different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Would you give up your house...

Would this be a house you currently lived in; or a spare house - one of many - that you never used, paid no attention to, and that squatters had been living in for the past 9 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Would you give up your house...

And the fact that it is STILL your property, even if a "spare", makes it OK now?

So, by that measure, can I have anything in your home that you haven't used in a while?

[heyrick]

Re: Would you give up your house...

"can I have anything in your home that you haven't used in a while?"

<looks around>

You'd be doing me a favour. Bring a truck...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And the fact that it is STILL your property, even if a "spare", makes it OK now?

I'm merely asking the question. For example, in the UK, sometimes it *is* legal, irrespective of any judgement about OK-ness:

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-property

[Alan Brown]

Re: And the fact that it is STILL your property, even if a "spare", makes it OK now?

Not to mention adverse possession

[Teal Bee]

Re: RE: deliberate spite

You're right, but Oracle is still the asshole in this story.

They could set up a "JavaScript Foundation" and donate the trademark to it for the benefit of the community. Not only would this improve Oracle's reputation, it would also benefit everyone else by removing the very real danger of litigation.

It could be a win-win situation, just like selling or renting out an unused house benefits everyone involved.

[Michael Strorm]

Re: RE: deliberate spite

> Not only would this improve Oracle's reputation

If you think that matters a damn, you're out of luck.

Oracle is one company that has *never* (as long as I've known them) given the impression of remotely caring about being seen as a good or cooperative corporate citizen. And nor has their "lock them in then openly squeeze them for every penny they've got" business model ever depended upon that.

[TheWeetabix]

Re: RE: deliberate spite

I’ve always wondered why people get into bed with Oracle knowing that, and then recently I realized that some people pay to get in bed with a person who does much the same thing to them, and probably for the same reasons.

[MyffyW]

Re: RE: deliberate spite

I honestly don't think people realise what they are letting themselves in for. Oracle is a toxic, abusive, coercive relationship enshrined in an EULA. Even by the low standards of corporate IT they are total b*stards.

[tekHedd]

What is spite?

"Why is it spite to retain an important property, one that you not only paid for..."

I'm not sure you know what "spite" is. In fact, you ask this as a rhetorical question, demonstrating as much.

You imply that spite has to have a "reason". It's not revenge! It's not rational. This won't be some sort of justified reaction. They'll do it because they can. They have power and can do it.

They're doing it for spite because they are a spiteful, hateful company, as demonstrated through their business practices for as long as they have been in business.

It's also a figure of speech. People often say "doing it out of spite" when what they really mean (in this case) is "doing it for spite". Not because they are experiencing spite, but to cause it. They'll do it deliberately to make everybody mad, for lulz. Oracle has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they are that kind of company.

Hmm, Oracle hasn't really been cranking the "goodwill handle" for the last few decades, has it?

[FIA]

Re: What is spite?

Oracle don't do what they do out of spite, they do it to make money.

They don't care about reputational damage as their reputation is 'a company that makes money at whatever cost' (as can be seen in the comments here over the years).

It's not malice.

It's greed.

[Ythermos]

Re: RE: deliberate spite

Equating a digital and physical property seems silly, especially since Oracle have done nothing with JavaScript but bark at some projects.

Regardless perhaps a better comparison would be if your property was a patch of grass on the footpath in front of an apartment building, and you shouted any time someone steps on it accidentally. In that case maybe the neighbours should be able to get rid of you...

[TheWeetabix]

Squat and push, methinks.

[bazza]

Oracle aren't exactly squatting on the JavaScript trademark. "JavaScript" is eminently confusable (at least outside of techie circles, which is what matters) with "Java", especially as both are programming languages, and the latter really is an Oracle actively marketed product.

Consider the act of starting up an alternative tech-orientated news website, calling it The ReRegister, complete with an eagle silhouette in between, a red page banner. One might expect to hear from the lawyers working for The Register.

Trademarks are commercially important. Similarities between trademarks are a bad thing. If you hold a trademark, you have to defend your ownership of it by actively pursuing infringments. If you don't, you lose the trademark. Giving away a trademark very similar to another you own is basically the same as giving away both. There's no way Oracle can give JavaScript(TM) away without also risking losing Java(TM). Oracle has arguably been rather restrained, given just how much software just uses the name JavaScript.

In essence, you're wishing to live in a world where you're quite happy that someone else can come along and just steal your work.

[Michael Strorm]

I made some similar observation in this post shortly before yours.

The important thing isn't merely that "Java" and "JavaScript" are very similar names, it's that the latter was *explicitly* named after the former in a deliberate attempt to associate it with the mid-90s hype around the Java language. Which is why Sun (and later Oracle, who bought them over) own the trademark and always have- it had to be licensed from Sun from the very beginning.

As I noted, the argument that Oracle aren't using the "JavaScript" name (the one that they appear to be building the entire case on) is a spurious red herring for this reason- they *never* had much to do with the product in the first place, beyond allowing Netscape to license *their* trademark for it.

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

Oracle could mess this up and start suing everyone. In truth what they are actually after is probably an annual licensing fee for the trademark from everyone. It's kind of depressing to think that if they play it right, they could get it.

[Plest]

Fear?

There's no fear of litigation from Larry's cash-cow, it's basically a certainity you will get your arse sued into the next century if you mess with Big Red!

[elsergiovolador]

To do

JavaScript is like guinea pig - neither from Guinea nor a pig.

Just call it whatever and be done with it.

Only power Debacle has over this is through people unable to simply let go.

[Mage]

Re: Guinea pig

Good example.

The fault was Netscape's. The solution isn't to persuade Oracle to be kind, but to rename it. Javascript was always a stupid name anyway.

chaiscript

webscript

achscript

avascript

seascript

jayscript

beescript

Something better than EMCA, Live, Java or browser-script.

I've always* thought it was a totally stupid name.

(* for nearly thirty years)

[Teal Bee]

Re: Guinea pig

My vote goes to beescript!

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Webscript please

You missed:

superscript (after the super keyword)

conscript (after the console class)

transcript (because it's transitional)

manuscript (because, whatever...)

nondescript (because that's what "ecmascript" is)

[Michael Strorm]

Re: Guinea pig

Just swap two barely-noticeable letters around to evade the trademark issue....

...wait, what do you mean "we can't possibly call it 'Vajascript'"?!

Edit: What about "Guavascript"...?

[mikus]

Oh yeah, Larry Ellison has always been the caring and philanthropic type, sure he will.

Over his cold, dead hands I'm sure.

[Michael Strorm]

"By holding onto this trademark, Oracle perpetuates unnecessary confusion..."

> "...in the developer community"

Not to defend Oracle. (*) But in this case, the root cause goes back almost thirty years- long before Oracle were involved- to when Netscape decided to rename their new "LiveScript" language as "JavaScript" for its launch.

Purely to piggyback onto the hype associated with the hot new language du jour, Java and its whizzy newfangled Internet Applets. (**) Despite the fact that "JavaScript" had nothing to do with Java beyond being Internet-related and both using the same basic C-derived syntax.

Of course, since "Java" was a trademark, Netscape had to (perpetually) license its use from Sun Microsystems, who were later taken over by Oracle.

So not only did the decision of a bunch of brand-oriented wankers in marketing lead to thirty years of people confusing JavaScript with the otherwise-unrelated Java, it also led to the lack of ownership in the name that caused to the mess we're still in today.

Which in turn leads on to the obvious fundamental problem with the attempted "Oracle haven't used the JavaScript name" angle in invalidating the trademark. (One which the article itself misses because it forgets/omits the origin of *why* they had to license the "JavaScript" name in the first place).

No, of course they haven't, just as Sun never really did either, because the whole point was that they only ever licensed the name at Netscape's request. The problem being the reason they had to license the name in the first place was because it was an intentional extension of Sun's pre-existing "Java" trademark which they very much did use and which Oracle continues to use to this day.

So, how is that going to work? Are we to expect that they can- let alone will- invalidate one trademark, but not the other? To invalidate the "JavaScript" trademark for the (aforementioned spurious) reason, yet leave Oracle with the original "Java" trademark (which *they*- or rather Sun- were the original owners of, and which they *have* continued to use and almost certainly have a legitimate right to retain). Despite the fact that not only are the two trademarks closely connected, but that the connection was the whole point in the first place?

I don't see that happening.

This is a mess, but, as I said, you can blame the entire mess on a bunch of marketing wankers making a completely unnecessary decision thirty years ago.

(*) Whose modus operandi is- and always has been- that they're shamelessly amoral dicks who'll exploit *any* leverage they have over anyone or anything to screw them over, and they'll continue to do so here.

(**) Which ironically ended up flopping for several reasons, with Java later becoming better-known for server-side use, and the client-side Applets' selling point of "applications in your browser" ended up being fulfilled by Macromedia's Flash.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "By holding onto this trademark, Oracle perpetuates unnecessary confusion..."

What I don't get is why Sum icensed JavaScript to Netscape in the first place, and didn't just tell them to sod off

[Michael Strorm]

Re: "By holding onto this trademark, Oracle perpetuates unnecessary confusion..."

They definitely *should* have (if only because it would have avoided thirty years of confusion). Though I can think of one r£a$on that might explain it...

[Chairman of the Bored]

2500 signatures!

Impressive. And you can bet every man Jack will now get an Oracle audit probe inserted into their, er, garbage colllector

[Vulture@C64]

Asking Oracle to give away something without financial gain ? That will never happen. They are the IT company I would least like to buy from, apart from Broadcom.

[Pete Sdev]

Die javascript, die

Just drop the name javascript and call it ECMAScript. It was always a bullshit marketing name, designed to ride the coattails of Java back in the day.

There's a thousand things I hate about javascript, and it's very name is one of them.

[Long John Silver]

JavaScript refuses to be corralled?

Credit to The Register for not following the ridiculous USA convention wherein superscript letters (TM) would attach to every mention of JavaScript. Unfortunately for Oracle, it is a victim of its own success. Regardless of Oracle's wishes, it has joined the same hall of fame as 'Hoover'.

[Michael Strorm]

Re: JavaScript refuses to be corralled?

Ironically, that's probably not a good example since "Hoover" is still, legally speaking, a trademark in the UK, even though it's usually treated as generic in everyday speech (e.g. how this model by a rival manufacturer is often referred to as "Henry hoover").