
JavaScript is a trademark owned by Oracle - yiransheng
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75026640&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
======
laumars
This shouldn't be news to anyone who's old enough to remember the internet in
the 90's. Back then Microsoft named their EMCAScript implementation "JScript"
to avoid problems with Sun's trademark (I'm sure everyone on here is already
aware that Oracle bought Sun a few years back).

However I don't think this trademark is worth anything to Oracle any longer.
Trademarks need to be defended or they're lost. This is why Wordpress have
strict rules about how themes and related websites cannot contain the name
"Wordpress"; and why you often see ridiculous cases about large companies
sending scary legal notices to independent enterprises but then quietly
settling out of court for token licence fees like £100 a year.

Javascript has long since entered the public domain so I suspect it's too late
for Oracle to capitalise on their acquired trademark.

~~~
jameshart
Let's be careful with terminology here. I'm (also) not an IP lawyer, but as I
understand it your use of the term 'public domain' here is inappropriate.

If you're arguing that JavaScript has become genericized - on the basis,
presumably, that there are multiple institutions making available various
implementations of JavaScript without acknowledging or licensing Oracle's
trademark - I'm not sure that's correct, and typically that would only be
settled in a legal case. Certainly, Google, for example, publishes V8 and
describes it as a "JavaScript Engine" \- and makes no trademark
acknowledgement toward Oracle that I can see; if Oracle wanted to they could
probably attempt to enforce their trademark rights there. Mozilla, who
distribute SpiderMonkey as a "JavaScript Engine", acknowledge the trademark
(though they still attribute it to Sun). Oracle's failure to continually
distribute any product which makes use of their trademark might count against
them, but if they wished to argue that Mozilla has continually exercised
Netscape's exclusive right to use the trademark, they might be able to get a
sympathetic judge to rule Google out of order for claiming V8 is 'JavaScript'.
Without a legal ruling, the situation's not clearcut.

~~~
chc
What's inappropriate about saying a term that is in wide, generic usage is in
the public domain?

~~~
derefr
I would say that it's not in wide, _generic_ usage, but rather in wide,
_implicitly-specific_ usage.

That is, "generic usage" refers to things like people using "a kleenex" to
refer to any facial tissue or "a xerox" to refer to any mimeograph. However,
when people say "JavaScript", they always mean the exact same JavaScript: the
one Oracle owns.

(It could be argued that they mean ECMAscript—but that's a bit like saying
that people who say "pass me a coke" when what they have available are cans of
no-name generic cola (with trade-dress explicitly reminiscent of Coca-Cola's,
no less) are actually thinking they want any generic cola, rather than that
they want a Coca-Cola and that the can you have to offer is merely an adequate
stand-in.

~~~
throwaway0010
The coke bit has regional variance. In the entire southern US "coke" is a
fully generic term for all carbonated beverages:
[http://laughingsquid.com/soda-pop-or-coke-maps-of-
regional-d...](http://laughingsquid.com/soda-pop-or-coke-maps-of-regional-
dialect-variation-in-the-united-states/)

Wikipedia lists "Coke" among marks that, while still protected, are often used
generically:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#List_of_protected_trademarks_frequently_used_as_generic_terms)

I think many marks on that list, including coke, could very well lose their
status if someone were to bother to fight the legal battle.

------
greenyoda
Wikipedia says: "Today, 'JavaScript' is a trademark of Oracle Corporation. It
is used under license for technology invented and implemented by Netscape
Communications and current entities such as the Mozilla Foundation." [1]

It's one of a long list of Java-related trademarks originally registered by
Sun:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20100528154600/http://www.sun.co...](https://web.archive.org/web/20100528154600/http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/#J)

Maybe Sun originally intended it to be the name of a Java-related product, and
when Netscape invented JavaScript, they found out too late that the name had
already been trademarked by Sun, so they licensed the trademark from Sun
instead of changing the name? I'm just guessing. Does anyone know the real
history?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Trademark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Trademark)

~~~
ordinary
According to Crockford[0], Netscape called it LiveScript, originally. In their
attempt to 'destroy Microsoft', they teamed up with Sun. One of Sun's original
goals with Java was making it the client-side scripting language for the
browser. However, Netscape had LiveScript. Apparently the negotiations almost
broke down over this point.

In an enlightened moment, (probably) Marc Andreessen proposed renaming
LiveScript to JavaScript (despite the fact that the languages have very little
in common), and joy was had. Sun got the JavaScript trademark (and passed it
on to Oracle), and Netscape got a perpetual _exclusive_ license to use it.

When JavaScript was standardized to avoid Embrace, Extend, Extinguish,
Netscape refused to share its license, and so the official language was
renamed to ECMAScript, after the standards body. When Sun was bought by
Oracle, it also got the trademark, and presumably, Mozilla inherited the
exclusive license from Netscape.

_____

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO1Wnu-
xKoY#t=430](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO1Wnu-xKoY#t=430)

~~~
rblatz
I was told by Robert Mathis that the name ECMAScript was picked as a draft
name because they were unable to focus on standardizing the language due to
all the fighting about the name. They figured the name was so awful that they
would have to go back and change it before they finished the standard. Then
they never got back around to changing it.

------
brador
Can"t common use be used to nullify a trademark?

~~~
jpkeisala
I don't think so.

~~~
unclebunkers
Absolutely, companies like Kimberly-Clark and Johnson& Johnson for Kleenex and
Band-Aid dedicate millions to ensuring you understand a clear distinction
between the name and what it is. Hence the Jingle "That's why I'm stuck on
Band-Aid BRAND and Band-Aids stuck on me." Emphasis mine. When do you ever
hear the word Brand in a jingle or marketing message outside the 60's?" Only
when the product is in danger of loosing it's trademark due to common use (or
crappy naming teams like the ones at Microsoft).

------
janitor61
Start calling it PhpScript or LispScript; there would be no loss of accuracy.

~~~
wwweston
Arguably an increase of accuracy in either case. :/

------
ianlevesque
Nothing to see here, everyone calls it ECMAScript.

~~~
almost
But ECMAScript is a mouthful to say and sounds a bit like a skin condition, I
don't think that's ever going to become the common name people use for it.

~~~
k__
In Germany, we pronounce it as one word.

Ecmascript and not E C M A script. Which makes it as easy to pronounce as
JavaScript.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The complaint still holds though. Add "-osis" to get "ecmascriptosis",
something that sounds more likely to be overheard in a hospital than at a Node
meetup.

------
runn1ng
They can always call it JScript.

~~~
simplyinfinity
Nope
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript)

~~~
runn1ng
(I know, that was the joke.)

~~~
morganvachon
Don't try to have a sense of humor on HN threads. You'll get modded into
oblivion and have your joke disassembled and laid bare in an attempt to show
how "unfunny" it might be. HN is serious business for serious people.
Seriously.

~~~
unclebunkers
Every word you said is completely accurate, and yet you had me laughing out
loud; been a while since I have.

~~~
unclebunkers
And me getting downvoted just kinda proves that.

------
ChuckMcM
Amongst many other trademarks. The one that irritates me is that we really
really wanted to call the browser "Webrunner" and at the last moment of
trademark clearance we heard that Taligent (the Apple/IBM thing) had already
gotten it. I still have the jacket where we had the stitching done [1]. So we
ended up calling it HotJava. Sigh.

[1]
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChuckMcManis/posts/hdvbvWCvbuY](https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChuckMcManis/posts/hdvbvWCvbuY)

------
shittyanalogy
Under what circumstances would they be defending this trademark?

~~~
giancarlostoro
Unless Oracle makes web browsers, I don't think under any circumstance. They'd
be up against the internet itself (not an over-exaggeration), and any tech
giant you could imagine. From Apple, Google, Microsoft, I think we're done
here, not to mention Mozilla, yeah, not going to go over well. They may be
money hungry, but they're not moronic.

------
barkingcat
That's why there's ECMAScript - the official name of the spec ... nothing new.

------
rocky1138
Unity3d gets around this by calling their adaptation UnityScript.

~~~
Stratoscope
Unity is actually pretty inconsistent about their naming. In some parts of
their docs they call it UnityScript:

[http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/CreatingAndUsingScripts.html](http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/CreatingAndUsingScripts.html)

In other places they call it JavaScript:

[http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/](http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/)

And in the Unity Editor when you use the Add Component / New Script, they call
it "Java Script"!

Everyone would be better served if Unity would call it UnityScript
consistently, since as you mentioned, their language _isn 't_ JavaScript but
is a fairly loose adaptation of it. It's more of a JavaScript-like language
than real JavaScript.

------
sreenadh
I ALWAYS had a feeling that something was off about "JavaScript". I hope
Oracle does not decide to start suing everyone using JS like node.js...

~~~
jerf
Oracle knows how to use the legal system to obtain money. It's one of their
core competencies. If you know the history of Oracle, you know that's not
sarcasm, it's just an observation. If they're not doing it now, it's because
they (correctly) realize there's no chance they could make money with it, and
I don't see that changing in the future. If they actually tried to sue someone
for it, "JavaScript" would change to "ECMAScript" at the speed of "Find &
Replace".

~~~
pyvpx
can you suggest any further reading on oracles legal prowess in this regard?
sounds like an interesting read to me, but I'm unsure where to find it.

~~~
troymc
Here's a start:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google)

[http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-
google/](http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-google/)

------
jokoon
Well it's ridiculous, but if it can make ecmascript die, why not.

/troll /rant

