[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...