I appreciate Ryan taking this up, and the updates are interesting.
Obviously I'm not paying for the lawyers but it feels like "oh Oracle is trying to add months of delays" feels pretty normal. Only months! If the process just trudges along for a couple of years before reaching a "good" conclusion, still worth doing!
And very happy that this is an actual legal proceeding and "try to sign a petition asking Oracle nicely" is no longer what is being looked at. It's Oracle!
Imagine how far along ago we would be[0] if 2 years ago the lawyers started getting involved. Sometimes you just gotta do the thing that takes forever. Or at least try in parallel?
[0]: Again, I'm not paying for the lawyers or doing anything useful at all!
> [0]: Again, I'm not paying for the lawyers or doing anything useful at all!
It sucks that these kinds of disclaimers are necessary these days. I've also had more than my fair share of "you're not helping so you don't get to have an opinion"
If you want to personify the mistaken belief "if a company can make money legally then it is obliged in law to do it, to maximise shareholder value" thing: Oracle is that company. There is only one goal. Immediate reporting cycle uptick benefit. There is no other goal.
I can think of almost no play they have made in the market which has any longterm net beneficial outcome for the entire market, despite "grow a bigger market" being a thing. We would have ZFS in a lot more places, if Oracle hadn't made a short term licence play, and muddied the waters.
We used to hate on a range of companies about their IBM like qualities (market dominance, bad behaviour inside the law) but now, IBM is a pale shadow, and Oracle has taken the crown.
The legal system is fundamentally broken, globally.
Last time I tried to start a legal action to claim damages against a big company for a very clear-cut case full of obvious fraud and deception (with plenty of evidence and many witnesses). I couldn't find a single lawyer willing to take my case for a share of the proceeds. The defendant was sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionably-obtained cash and assets. To me, this is proof that the legal system is broken. It means the lawyers knew that the odds of winning were extremely low, regardless of the evidence.
I told them about the large amounts of money involved and told them my situation; many of them didn't even ask about what evidence I had. That's how unlikely it is to win a legal case for a non-corporate entity; lawyers won't even lift a finger about a case involving millions and literal fraud if the plaintiff doesn't have the right status, exposure or business connections.
If this is how they deal with the creator of Node.js with the support of Brendan Eich (who literally invented JavaScript), then imagine how they deal with the rest of us who aren't high-exposure individuals.
What's the point of even having a legal system if it only works for certain people?
The npm package for Oracle JET, with ~1000 weekly downloads, has four dependent packages on npm, and if you walk down the dependency tree it’s nearly entirely other Oracle packages or long dead demos/one-shots.
That 1,000 weekly downloads could be entirely from CI pipelines for those other Oracle projects.
The phone call is coming from inside the house, Larry!
First time I'd ever heard of it too; I ran straight to Google and it only came up with results for "Breville Oracle Jet Espresso Machine" which interestingly enough Breville seem to hold a trademark on "Oracle" itself in the machines and tools class!
it's Oracle's UI library that they encourage their official partners to use. I've had the misfortune of doing some consulting for a company that used it, it's actually very fully featured but the internals are totally insane and very dated.
It's their JS UI components library. Gets used in oracle apps. Very comprehensive in terms of covering all you need. Another comment opines on its technical soundness.
They did several wrong decisions, first they started building it with old libraries, e.g. JQuery, KnockoutJS, then they they should have opened their no code builder to the public. They are now in the process of porting it to Preact and opened VBCS, but it’s too late. From UI point of view, it is the most complete library
I'm sympathetic to the points being made but the argument that Oracle does not have its own JavaScript runtime does not hold.
An OracleBD is able to execute triggers written in JavaScript since quite some time.
I don't think the article outright claims Oracle has no JavaScript runtime, only that Oracle JET is no runtime, which is true. And since this is the evidence Oracle presented to keep the trademark, it's fair to point out that this is nonsense. But it's also true that if this goes to court, Oracle could present GraalJS (which is used in OracleDB) as evidence for their case.
Well, at least I can still install ublock origin on Edge, but I can't do that on Vanilla Chromium (yep, that manifest v3 thing is enabled by default for Chromium in Google's flavor)
Netscape wanted to call their new language "JavaScript" to piggy-back off the popularity of Java. Sun Microsystems owned Java(tm), and allowed Netscape to use the name while retaining the trademark. Netscape was purchased by AOL and then terminated. Oracle purchased Sun and all things Java, including the JavaScript trademark. Sun and Oracle have never done anything significant in the JavaScript world, but retain the trademark because of the Java name.
Since literally no one associates JavaScript with Oracle, unless aware of the name history and company acquisition history, it isn't a valid identifier of the source of "JavaScript", and should be canceled or transferred to an organization like EcmaScript International.
Brendan Eich said "ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that sounds like a skin disease". I think the general sentiment is shared fairly broadly.
“LiveScript” wasn’t bad. They really did aim to make JS a scripting system for Java tho, through the LiveConnect Bridge. Unfortunately LiveConnect was a buggy POS. MS had a similar thing going on that was less buggy, but IE-only of course.
So yeah, I don’t miss LiveConnect. Let’s just call it “WebScript” or something.
To avoid "trade mark infringement" all the JS runtime owners could just make theirs not work on any oracle app or domain with a big annoying message about the case.
We could also rebrand it as Js and it would be the funniest thing ever. Few things would make me happier than seeing Oracle being screwed by something that's technically correct, but clearly nonsense to every living human being.
I say what I said to the last Oracle salesmen who visited me: “when your legal teams drives more revenue that your sales team, you know your company is deader than Larry Ellisons dick”
Just under 30 years ago, when I was starting my IT studies, I had an older colleague who was a great authority to me. When I began learning about RDBMS options, I called him to ask, „What do you think about Oracle?”. He just shouted, „Total crap!!!” and that was enough for me. Since then, to this day, I’ve never touched Oracle.
This response is just saying that "no we didn't fraudulently submit the node.js site, it's just (hand-waving)".
They also state that they expect to win on the generic-ness aspect of the suit at trial with the relevant audience (hah).
Most likely we'll see Oracle send out C&Ds to uses of Javascript without the (tm) Oracle for a few months before a trial starts. Whether that will be enough to convince a judge and/or jury that they haven't abandoned the trademark is another question.
On the fraud issue, while it's infuriating, I don't think you have standing to allege the actual issue.
The issue is statement 17 of your filing is factually incorrect, as Oracle details in their motion to dismiss. The form, without that specimen, is still valid; the most the court could do is to strike that image from the record and everything else would remain unchanged.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, you need standing to proceed with a claim. Standing here means that you were harmed or affected by the claim, and are seeking relief (i.e. asking the court to do/order something for you). The problem here, as Oracle points out, is that you were not harmed by the misrepresentation of the specimen. The USPTO was harmed by the misrepresentation, not you.
A way around this issue would be if the USPTO delegated its authority to bring-misrepresentation-concerns to any applicant willing to pay the court costs. You'd have to check if any law delegated that authority (for judicial action), or if there's a separate form, process, or procedure used to handle the delegation (outside of judicial action).
A similar example of this in action is EPA violations; for many cases, no individual has standing to bring the court action needed to address the harm being done. So the EPA was given that standing by law. Then the EPA delegates that authority as needed, or acts on its own.
I think you should drop this claim and continue with the others, and look into how USPTO handles immaterial but knowingly-false information. They probably have some mechanism, so that people don't just... throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
> So last November, I filed a formal petition with the USPTO through my company, Deno, to cancel Oracle’s “JavaScript” trademark. Among other things, we pointed out that in 2019, Oracle renewed its trademark by submitting a screenshot of the Node.js website—a project I created—as proof of use, despite having no affiliation with it.
Clown world. We go about thinking our legal system might have some flaws but generally "works"
I hope this is good marketing for Deno and not just a huge distraction. I feel like Bun is running circles around them right now. I feel like there might even be room for 3 winners (Bun, Deno, Node) but I don't understand the point of this.
If Deno wins this battle will that make we want use Deno more?
Imagine you start a new OSS RDBMS project. To help drive adoption you license a trademark from Oracle and call it "OracleBase", even though it has nothing much in common with the well known Oracle database other than also being an RDBMS.
Despite not being objectively better than competitors OracleBase is wildly successful and basically takes over the OSS RDBMS space. Multiple other projects and vendors are building on your specs. A popular and extensive ecosystem develops around it. Many peoples careers are invested in its growth and success.
One day you wake up in a cold sweat, suddenly remembering that the old trademark you licensed years ago is still there, pointed at your cathedral like a nuclear missile, with Larry Ellison's finger on the trigger.
[+] [-] rtpg|1 year ago|reply
Obviously I'm not paying for the lawyers but it feels like "oh Oracle is trying to add months of delays" feels pretty normal. Only months! If the process just trudges along for a couple of years before reaching a "good" conclusion, still worth doing!
And very happy that this is an actual legal proceeding and "try to sign a petition asking Oracle nicely" is no longer what is being looked at. It's Oracle!
Imagine how far along ago we would be[0] if 2 years ago the lawyers started getting involved. Sometimes you just gotta do the thing that takes forever. Or at least try in parallel?
[0]: Again, I'm not paying for the lawyers or doing anything useful at all!
[+] [-] chasil|1 year ago|reply
They should wrest this from Oracle.
"Microsoft Edge: the browser that gave you <script> as no one else could."
[+] [-] kaycebasques|1 year ago|reply
Great phrase
[+] [-] LoganDark|1 year ago|reply
It sucks that these kinds of disclaimers are necessary these days. I've also had more than my fair share of "you're not helping so you don't get to have an opinion"
[+] [-] LorenDB|1 year ago|reply
Yes, those are old by now, but it's still a blast from the past.
[+] [-] pseudosavant|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] xmprt|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ndneighbor|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ggm|1 year ago|reply
I can think of almost no play they have made in the market which has any longterm net beneficial outcome for the entire market, despite "grow a bigger market" being a thing. We would have ZFS in a lot more places, if Oracle hadn't made a short term licence play, and muddied the waters.
We used to hate on a range of companies about their IBM like qualities (market dominance, bad behaviour inside the law) but now, IBM is a pale shadow, and Oracle has taken the crown.
[+] [-] nhumrich|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jongjong|1 year ago|reply
Last time I tried to start a legal action to claim damages against a big company for a very clear-cut case full of obvious fraud and deception (with plenty of evidence and many witnesses). I couldn't find a single lawyer willing to take my case for a share of the proceeds. The defendant was sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionably-obtained cash and assets. To me, this is proof that the legal system is broken. It means the lawyers knew that the odds of winning were extremely low, regardless of the evidence.
I told them about the large amounts of money involved and told them my situation; many of them didn't even ask about what evidence I had. That's how unlikely it is to win a legal case for a non-corporate entity; lawyers won't even lift a finger about a case involving millions and literal fraud if the plaintiff doesn't have the right status, exposure or business connections.
If this is how they deal with the creator of Node.js with the support of Brendan Eich (who literally invented JavaScript), then imagine how they deal with the rest of us who aren't high-exposure individuals.
What's the point of even having a legal system if it only works for certain people?
[+] [-] boblauer|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kingforaday|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] threecheese|1 year ago|reply
That 1,000 weekly downloads could be entirely from CI pipelines for those other Oracle projects.
The phone call is coming from inside the house, Larry!
[+] [-] davidsojevic|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ikesau|1 year ago|reply
But because you'll be too curious to resist now, from what I can tell it's a preact bootstrapping script with 500 weekly downloads on NPM.
[+] [-] phpnode|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tom1337|1 year ago|reply
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@oracle/ojet-cli https://www.npmjs.com/package/@oracle/oraclejet
[+] [-] zoom6628|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nnurmanov|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] _old_dude_|1 year ago|reply
see https://blogs.oracle.com/java/post/multilingual-engine-execu...
[+] [-] Narretz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vips7L|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] floydnoel|1 year ago|reply
> The major implementations of JavaScript are in the browsers built by Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Microsoft
Isn't MS's browser just Chromium? Weird to add them to the list when they don't build a browser any more. Why not add Brave, etc?
[+] [-] stevefan1999|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] not_a_bot_4sho|1 year ago|reply
No. It's based on Chromium. It has quite a bit on functionally that's not available on Chrome or Chromium.
[+] [-] t0ps0il|1 year ago|reply
It seems like their browser engine is still being supported for use in "Universal Windows Platform" apps, or at least that's what Wikipedia says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdgeHTML
[+] [-] JavierFlores09|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] GoblinSlayer|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] seanclayton|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kbutler|1 year ago|reply
Since literally no one associates JavaScript with Oracle, unless aware of the name history and company acquisition history, it isn't a valid identifier of the source of "JavaScript", and should be canceled or transferred to an organization like EcmaScript International.
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|1 year ago|reply
"JavaScript" was not a good choice of name to begin with. The original JavaScript did not have much in common with Java.
[+] [-] steve_adams_86|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Legion|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] chuckadams|1 year ago|reply
So yeah, I don’t miss LiveConnect. Let’s just call it “WebScript” or something.
[+] [-] CountHackulus|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] olestr|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] zoom6628|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] toddmorey|1 year ago|reply
There would be good support and we could do it fairly swiftly. To hell with Oracle.
[+] [-] Etheryte|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ilaksh|1 year ago|reply
LiveScript is a really great language that compiles to JavaScript.
https://livescript.net/
[+] [-] freetanga|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] _7acn|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mmastrac|1 year ago|reply
They also state that they expect to win on the generic-ness aspect of the suit at trial with the relevant audience (hah).
Most likely we'll see Oracle send out C&Ds to uses of Javascript without the (tm) Oracle for a few months before a trial starts. Whether that will be enough to convince a judge and/or jury that they haven't abandoned the trademark is another question.
[+] [-] phlosioneer|1 year ago|reply
The issue is statement 17 of your filing is factually incorrect, as Oracle details in their motion to dismiss. The form, without that specimen, is still valid; the most the court could do is to strike that image from the record and everything else would remain unchanged.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, you need standing to proceed with a claim. Standing here means that you were harmed or affected by the claim, and are seeking relief (i.e. asking the court to do/order something for you). The problem here, as Oracle points out, is that you were not harmed by the misrepresentation of the specimen. The USPTO was harmed by the misrepresentation, not you.
A way around this issue would be if the USPTO delegated its authority to bring-misrepresentation-concerns to any applicant willing to pay the court costs. You'd have to check if any law delegated that authority (for judicial action), or if there's a separate form, process, or procedure used to handle the delegation (outside of judicial action).
A similar example of this in action is EPA violations; for many cases, no individual has standing to bring the court action needed to address the harm being done. So the EPA was given that standing by law. Then the EPA delegates that authority as needed, or acts on its own.
I think you should drop this claim and continue with the others, and look into how USPTO handles immaterial but knowingly-false information. They probably have some mechanism, so that people don't just... throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
[+] [-] culi|1 year ago|reply
Clown world. We go about thinking our legal system might have some flaws but generally "works"
[+] [-] bmacho|1 year ago|reply
I like this, as a simple yet powerful slogen!
[+] [-] krashidov|1 year ago|reply
If Deno wins this battle will that make we want use Deno more?
[+] [-] 2d8a875f-39a2-4|1 year ago|reply
Despite not being objectively better than competitors OracleBase is wildly successful and basically takes over the OSS RDBMS space. Multiple other projects and vendors are building on your specs. A popular and extensive ecosystem develops around it. Many peoples careers are invested in its growth and success.
One day you wake up in a cold sweat, suddenly remembering that the old trademark you licensed years ago is still there, pointed at your cathedral like a nuclear missile, with Larry Ellison's finger on the trigger.
[+] [-] matt3210|1 year ago|reply