Between this and Oracle's ongoing lawsuit against Google for their use of Java in Android, I have a pretty low opinion of Oracle.
> The unauthorized display of our client's intellectual property is likely to cause consumers encountering this app to mistakenly believe that it emanates from, or is provided under a license from, Oracle.
When I think of JS, I think of Brendan Eich, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, web development, Node.js, etc.
Although really Oracle should have the sense to see the state of the landscape and just drop it. It's become a generic term - in fact, it always was.
Google taught everybody a lesson, avoid Oracle products.
Just asking ...
It took me a while though:
I was wondering if this statement is self-contradictory or not. Eventually, I figured it is not necessarily self-contradictory, but that it declares itself to be an evil belief (since it is a statement of universal truth that declares that the belief of any universal truth is evil).
Of course I think it’s just incorrect.
For my sake, I believe in truth and good, and that if someone finds a good thing, they should tell others about it in a respectful and loving way.
Nihilism: Nothing matters except for the fact that nothing matters.
Seems like it struck a nerve with a lot of people. Not sure what their problem is.
I could be wrong.
I mean he dresses and grooms himself like the evil alternate universe version of a nice person. And everything I’ve heard is that he’s a horrible manchild.
Something which only few persons choose to do
Feel free to dig into the details though if you want. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out where the rot is. :)
But rot, self interest? Not everybody can't do no evil. If he goes through with his pledge (which I assume) he will have done a lot of good. And he will have done it voluntarily. Doesn't make hime a saint, but...
(..almost ;-) - i'm joking; btw, did/will Steve Jobs, Larry and Sergey give away such a substancial part of their wealth?)
I am convinced if there was a crossroads with a payout of x dollars for both choices, but with a pretty nasty outcome for the community for choice y as the distinguishing factor, Oracle would pick y in a heartbeat.
I think a good description for Oracle is "the demon that pulls everyone down to hell with them..."
In a big budget project, they had implemented a report, like sales per month or something similar. The requirement was to sort the result by month. Any sane person would sort it by the order the months happens in a year, like January, February, March, etc... But not Oracle: April, August, December, February, January, July, June, March, May, November, October, September.
Technically they are sorted... and they requirements only said sort by month. To get it fixed the customer had to pay Oracle more money, since they changed changed the requirements.
I spent weeks and many back-and-forth emails and calls with AdWords support trying to explain that 1) our use of the term is well within Oracle’s guidelines, and 2) no, I am not going to contact Oracle to fill out a permission form for me.
It didn’t work. Not even with Level 2 support.
Thankfully, AdWords policy enforcement is completely random and nonsensical so I just duplicated the ads several times until one of them did not get flagged.
It's old school software selling, influence the decision maker and the job is done
Those Hawaiian islands aren't cheap, you know...
Next time, just put "Disclaimer: I work for Oracle"
Where's the documentation for PeopleSoft which actually makes any sense? (I suspect the product itself no longer makes any sense, which would explain much).
It really feels like Oracle once had amazing technology but fell into the trap of an unmaintainable nightmare and have fallen back on the legal route to try to retain their dominance.
Unfortunately, while the community advantages of having a dominant interoperation mechanism are real - like having a common tongue - it rewarded the means of attaining dominance. A sales culture. A zero-sum game. It's not enough that I win, others must lose.
And here we are.
Being the #1 doesn’t mean you’re right. It just means your ads work.
Wasn't their inaction risking to lose the entire Java trademark by not defending it against Netscape? Does anyone know more about the history here?
What would Google do today if someone named their language DartScript? Or what would Apple do if someone released SwiftScript?
Pun unintended I guess, but still funny.
You won't find any argument here
The only weapons Oracle has are vendor lock in and crushing competition with litigation.
Visual J++ on the other hand was because Sun sued them over a Java implementation which wasn't actually compatible with Java, and misuse of the trademark, and all that kind of thing, so Microsoft weren't allowed to call it Java anymore. This ultimately led to the development of C#, so it was probably for the good in the long term, apart from some of the bits they copied from Java in what was presumably an attempt to make it more a direct alternative.
My guess is Oracle would only do the latter, and that they're doing it because some lawyer thinks that Oracle has to do this to demonstrate that it is defending the mark even though that's nonsense if they don't go after notable unlicensed uses of their mark.
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a corporate lawyer.
"Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a corporate lawyer."
Shall we call it Cryptonector's Razor? You invented it, you name it :)
edit: someone else (not me) should name the principle that explains why so few people on HN have any sense of humor whatsoever.
I think lots of people have sense of humor, but it's accepted here in very limited amount (and preferably when it's clever humor). I'd attribute this to HN being one of the few remaining places on the Internet where you can discuss serious/interesting stuff without immediately drowning in effort-free jokes and memes - and people want to keep it that way. Hence, the word I'd be looking for might be "oversensitivity".
As to the HN-has-little-humor phenomenon, well, some people seem to think that dry == authoritative. That's BS, of course, but I don't know what to call that. I'll think about it.
Are corporate lawyers not the physical manifestation of malice itself?
My wife is a corporate lawyer, so ive seen a little bit of these shenanigans from her perspective. And it pretty much boils down to this: there are certain risks lawyers can take and keep their jobs, and risks they will lose their jobs over. Like everyone else, they do not enjoy unemployment.
Saying “this business idea is fine, go for it” and it succeeds? They get no credit. Saying “I don’t think this is legal,” ugh, lawyers are always too cautious, but its par for the course sonit doesn’t reflect badly on them. Saying “go for it” and get nailed in an enforcement action? Unemployed and unemployable.
Likewise, when it comes to protecting IP, as required by law. They can’t -not- do it: it’s their job, explicitly, to protect the IP. Deciding “we will not pursue the correct course of legal action to (legally) protect our clients rights to protect their branding” isn’t in their purview, that belongs to the execs (who Are the ones that make those decisions). Any lawyer that decided that on their own? They’d better hope it -never- has -any- consequences, because... unemployed and unemployable.
It’s easy to blame lawyers for protecting their clients rights, but all they do is navigate the system. They don’t make the system, and they don’t pull the trigger
 there is a meme that lawyers build the legal system, as opposed to, you know, legislators, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc. I find it poorly related to reality.
When I said “defend as required by law,” I meant “defend the IP in the specific manner dictated by our laws,” not that one is obligated to defend it at all. Eg, suing people to prevent IP from becoming generic is the defense that is recognized in our legal tradition - thus, if they are to defend it, the conservative must follow this route.
Justice has always been for sale. What's happened is that the price has increased to the point where most of us can't afford it.
The community would call the FOSS build system "snot" and the linter "nosebleed".
Kleenex is probably a bad example, because Kleenex has actually defended their trademark. At least I don't think Kranky Kim could actually use Kleenex in her product name.
Which begs the question: Is there any such thing as a class action but for defense instead of lawsuit? Oracle could snuff out a million app developers individually without ever even having to so much as appear once in court. Just send these letters. But could a million developers act as a class in a defense the way they could in an action?
Adobe is worried about protecting Photoshop as people use the word as a verb for editing photos in other apps. Kimberly-Clark is worried about protecting Kleenex as people use the word as substitute for other tissues (at least in the U.S.) And Velcro is worried about protecting their namesake (it’s a hook and loop).
LEGO is the singular and the plural form. Thus "a LEGO brick" and "the LEGO bricks" are valid sentences. That's why some choose to correct Americas on their use of "legos." It has nothing to do with trademark law.
It's not quite the same as sheep/sheeps. Saying "there are 2 sheep in the field" is fine but saying "there are 2 Lego on the floor" still sounds a bit weird. You would have to use "there are 2 Lego bricks on the floor".
It's because Lego is an uncountable noun, like rice or sand. E.g. "there are 2 grains of rice on the floor" is fine but "there are 2 rice on the floor" is not. Saying "there are 2 rices on the floor" sounds very bad, and is the equivalent to using "Legos" instead of "Lego bricks".
The unauthorized display of our client's intellectual property is likely to cause consumers encountering this app to mistakenly believe that it emanates from, or is provided under a license from, Oracle.
(I have my doubts regarding that probability, but that's a different matter)
I stand by my original comment. There's nothing overboard about it, and nothing demanding absolute certainty.
Fortunately the ES shorthand is more workable (e.g. ES6, ES2017, etc).
From the brilliant "A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages": http://james-iry.blogspot.co.il/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and... .
I'm just going to call it ES or ECMAScript from now on. If enough people do it the matter will be settled.
Yes, but only after:
> Would he be required to pay a fee?
Yes, it's Oracle. It will be a hefty one.
And Sun requested the name change:
So it's kind of the opposite of chickens coming home to roost. More like a term plan finally paying off.
The app was written long time ago and I'm surprised to receive an email from Apple about it at all.
Here is the link so you can see how it's shown in the App Store, I don't think anyone would associate this app with Oracle!
Also, everyone is assuming that Oracle has demanded this. It could be that some over-eager lawyer at Apple set up a rule which says that any trademark cannot be in the name of an app. Until I hear some evidence that Oracle demanded this, I think this is an Apple issue. Can you sell an app with this name on Google Play?
Eons ago Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corp (Beatle's record label) for trademark infringement. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Steve's deliberately named their computer company after the Beattles's corporate creature, being that Jobs was an ardent Beatles fan. They settled and agreed not to enter each other's business (ie, music and computer), so as not to confuse consumers. Apple is a bit hypocritical in this regard though -- in one trademark lawsuit, the company sued a mom-and-pop grocer in Poland whose website, A.pl, Apple claimed, violated Apple's trademark, not too long ago and was criticized for their insanely absurd legal tactics.
Apple does that. They have a "Made For i" accessory program, and go after third-party accessory distributors (not manufacturers) who use their trademarks without permission:
Definitely not the hard part of maintaining a legacy dynamically-typed application. And I'd say it's the most trivial part.
And your assertion suggests that it's somehow rare to have to maintain code? I'm sure the person you replied to has maintained code for more than a year and is drawing part of their post from that experience.
I've worked on a Node application with express, underscore and redis (we didn't need a full DB -- name value pairs were fine). I'm not even sure if using express is worth it. In our case it stayed completely out of our way, so I can't really complain. My only regret was using jasmine for testing. I would definitely use mocha these days. For server side, just use Node modules and ES6. No need to complicate it with transpilers, build tools, etc, etc.
Ironically, client side is much more of a hassle (I still haven't found a build tool that I think is worth using).
Edit: looks like he was suggested this in the Reddit thread and thought it was a good idea.