Oracle, to my knowledge, does not profit at all off of the JavaScript name or brand. I don't see the purpose of defending this lawsuit. They have an opportunity to create some goodwill here, hold a press release, and say "We're gifting the JavaScript trademark to the developer community!" But instead they're defending something that they literally do not profit off of. It's absurd.
> They have an opportunity to create some goodwill here
According to Bryan Cantrill, you don't need to be open minded about Oracle. It's a waste of the openness of your mind. He says what you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. He believes there has been no entity in human history with less complexity and nuance to it than Oracle.
Bryan warns, "Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn. You stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- the lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."
They could reverse 90% of their brand damage in one swing by simply updating CDDL to allow integrating ZFS with GPL, which also wouldn't cost them anything as far as I'm aware, but we're both making the mistake of anthropomorphizing the lawnmower.
Nowadays, it's a lawyer company - not a technology/software company. Their only reason for existence is to keep selling licenses for the things they own for as long as they still can, so it's pretty natural they're holding on to anything (regardless of actual value) they can.
The only logical reason I can think of to fight to keep the trademark is that they specifically don't want any goodwill, and that want to maintain their reputation as ruthless litigators.
This is the wrong way to look at it from a business perspective. They don’t directly profit off licensing or support or anything like that, but they gain free advertising.
They gain absolutely nothing by handing over the name and brand - in fact they lose valuable brand recognition.
Obviously most people in the industry hate them with a passion (see this thread as evidence), but many see the association as evidence that they might at least have some expertise with that product set. I certainly don’t agree with their position, but it makes sense commercially.
> Oracle, to my knowledge, does not profit at all off of the JavaScript name or brand.
At this time, but their ownership and past behavior indicates that if Deno or anyone else tries to have a paid offering, there’s a non-zero chance Oracle will come sniffing for low effort money.
Isn't the entire reason because they funded JavaScript and in order to protect Java's trademark they maintain it just in case? I think that's the real simple answer. Feel free to educate me if someone knows different.
> They have an opportunity to create some goodwill here
This would be first event of that kind to my knowledge. I've been coding for 20 years and never heard anyone say anything good about Oracle other than their free hosting tier _is free_. Better late than never I guess!
How is it that Oracle gets to claim this trademark at all? They never created it, Netscape did. Oracle bought Sun which could have challenged Netscape for naming JavaScript after Java, but I don't think they ever did.
I mean I get Oracle hate and stuff, but remember the great and lovely Sun Microsystems used all tricks in the bag against Microsoft with respect to Java late 90s/early 2000s.
So, is "X abuses IP law" hatred is out of principle or because folks seem to be in love with Sun and Google and hate Oracle and Microsoft.
In all seriousness, let's just rename it "WebScript". WebAssembly, WebGPU, WebRTC, WebWorkers. It fits. And it seems like there's no active trademark for it too (although I admittedly did not do a super sophisticated search).
The “Java” prefix still confuses new users, not to mention "bizdev" people, and probably leads to legal issues beyond just the trademark. "JavaScript" has always sucked as a name, we're just used to it now. Why are we fighting so hard for it? Let's just take this as an opportunity to name it something that actually makes sense. It will maybe be sort of annoying for a few years, but I'm certain one day we'll look back and not believe we used to call it "JAVA Script".
Thank you to everyone behind this effort. At some point, decades ago in the past, Oracle added value to the tech ecosystem. Now, they’re a giant rent-extracting behemoth. I hate the fact that we can’t have nice things in 2025 simply because Oracle owns the IP. Oracle is what happens when corporations become lazy and hand over the keys to some brand names just because “no one ever got fired for buying/hiring _____.” I hope those days are past us.
Honestly, I had no idea JavaScript was even a trademarked name. I've always just assumed it's the name of a programming language and had no idea it had anything to do with Oracle.
I guess I don't feel bad not knowing this though, as the language really does have nothing to do with the company it's insane that they even hold a trademark for it.
> a screenshot of the Node.js website to show use of the “JavaScript” trademark. As the creator of Node.js, I find that especially offensive.
There is some irony in that Ryan isn’t acknowledging Node.js own trademark in his post, given that he was the person who announced the Node.js trademark.
I might not be popular for this but JavaScript is indeed a trademark which Oracle rightfully owns these days. This is fair play.
However, I do believe the word has been diluted and genericized and hope the USPTO chooses to release it.
A good argument to avoid losing a trademark to genericization is to show that there is an actual generic term that overlaps with the trademark, but then the trademark is not the generic term itself.
Examples:
Nintendo → Video Game Console
Post-it → Sticky Note
Xerox → Photocopy
etc ...
In the case of JavaScript, there's no generic term to allude to; JavaScript is the generic term, which might weigh towards the argument of genericization.
Oracle is the only company in history that spawned a huge consultants network just to "survive" their license audits.
Google results:
Oracle License Audit Survival Guide for CIOs
Handling Oracle’s “Friendly” License Reviews
How to Prepare for an Oracle License Audit
How to Prepare For and Navigate an Oracle License Audit
Top 7 Oracle Audit Triggers (And How to Avoid Them)
Top 5 Best Oracle License Consultant Firms
7 Questions to Ask When Engaging an Oracle Audit Defense
Nashorn (the JS engine in the JDK) was the only teeth Oracle had, but they removed it, so what can they truly say they own that supports the fact they're building JavaScript?
> To plead a claim of fraud, petitioner must plead that: (1) respondent made a false representation to the USPTO; (2) respondent had knowledge of the falsity of the representation; (3) the false representation was material to the continued registration of the mark, and (4) respondent made the representation with the intent to deceive the USPTO.
> A claim of fraud must set forth all elements of the claim with a heightened degree of particularity [...] Indeed, “the pleadings [must] contain explicit rather than implied expressions of the circumstances constituting the fraud.” In addition, intent to deceive the USPTO is a specific element of a fraud claim, and must be sufficiently pleaded
> Essentially, Petitioner’s theory of fraud is based on allegations that the specimen of use submitted with Respondent’s maintenance documents do not show use by the proper party. It is well-settled that the proper ground for cancellation is the underlying question of whether the mark was in use in commerce, not the adequacy of the specimens [...] the insufficiency of the specimens, per se, does not constitute grounds for cancellation; the proper ground for cancellation is that the term has not been used as a mark
From what I understand, TTAB is stating that simply showing that Oracle improperly submitting Node.js as a use of mark does not constitute fraud because the intent to deceive was not explicit. It's a bit frustrating because if its not _fradulent_ the only thing I am left to believe is that they were _negligent_.
To file for a mark or renewal of a mark and claim ownership of something you do not own is insane. It's not like this is a 5 second process or that there isn't a lot of money riding on this-- this sort of thing is super serious and incredibly important! You're telling me no one at Oracle or their counsel was able to catch this in review before filing? As far as I can tell, in the renewal for the mark[1], Node.js was the sole specimen provided as an example of mark use! Come on...
EDIT: Sorry, correction, they have three specimens attached to the renewal, two of which seem to be the same. Clearly an insurmountable amount of work and too complicated to validate.
IANAL, but I don't think your analysis is quite correct.
I think the key is
> It is well-settled that the proper ground for cancellation is the underlying question of whether the mark was in use in commerce, not the adequacy of the specimens
If I understand correctly (and I very well might not), that means that it doesn't matter whether some of the provided specimens were fraudulent or not, in order to revoke the trademark the burden of proof is to show the entire trademark claim was fraudulent, and if there was no fraud, then the trademark wouldn't have been granted.
Deno might be able to make a stronger argument of fraud, if they could show without that specimen USPTO would have rejected the application, or that the other specimen was also invalid, but that would delay the proceedings and require more work for them.
[+] [-] maxk42|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] breve|8 months ago|reply
According to Bryan Cantrill, you don't need to be open minded about Oracle. It's a waste of the openness of your mind. He says what you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. He believes there has been no entity in human history with less complexity and nuance to it than Oracle.
Bryan warns, "Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn. You stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- the lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=1981s
[+] [-] homebrewer|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] drdaeman|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] WD-42|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] arp242|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] thayne|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] greggsy|8 months ago|reply
They gain absolutely nothing by handing over the name and brand - in fact they lose valuable brand recognition.
Obviously most people in the industry hate them with a passion (see this thread as evidence), but many see the association as evidence that they might at least have some expertise with that product set. I certainly don’t agree with their position, but it makes sense commercially.
[+] [-] hamilyon2|8 months ago|reply
I think lawnmower metaphor never was accurate or helped to get it.
Oracle is an alligator or a snake. A reptile. If you move, it will probably eat you alive. It wants to eat you, or part of you.
It also lives in the waterhole, hoarding an essential resource. Not guarding or developing it, just sitting there.
It is ancient and will never change.
It's not alligator's fault for being predator. It is it's nature
[+] [-] burnte|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] relativeadv|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Zafira|8 months ago|reply
At this time, but their ownership and past behavior indicates that if Deno or anyone else tries to have a paid offering, there’s a non-zero chance Oracle will come sniffing for low effort money.
[+] [-] NBJack|8 months ago|reply
It literally wouldn't surprise me if when asked, the legal team simply responded "it's standing policy".
[+] [-] randyrand|8 months ago|reply
I’m not sure if that’s even possible under US law though.
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] N7lo4nl34akaoSN|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Quekid5|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] wraptile|8 months ago|reply
This would be first event of that kind to my knowledge. I've been coding for 20 years and never heard anyone say anything good about Oracle other than their free hosting tier _is free_. Better late than never I guess!
[+] [-] mcv|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rplnt|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] justinator|8 months ago|reply
Whoever thinks it's a good idea to bet on the altruism of a giant faceless corporation is dumb.
[+] [-] znpy|8 months ago|reply
"Developer communities" tend to create issues out of thin air, and that I don't like.
In this case I'm siding with Oracle.
[+] [-] globular-toast|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dad_chowder|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] SergeAx|8 months ago|reply
[0] https://www.globalnerdy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/oracl... (can't find original XKCD, sorry)
[+] [-] xyst|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tgma|8 months ago|reply
So, is "X abuses IP law" hatred is out of principle or because folks seem to be in love with Sun and Google and hate Oracle and Microsoft.
[+] [-] ninetyninenine|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tolmasky|8 months ago|reply
The “Java” prefix still confuses new users, not to mention "bizdev" people, and probably leads to legal issues beyond just the trademark. "JavaScript" has always sucked as a name, we're just used to it now. Why are we fighting so hard for it? Let's just take this as an opportunity to name it something that actually makes sense. It will maybe be sort of annoying for a few years, but I'm certain one day we'll look back and not believe we used to call it "JAVA Script".
[+] [-] lvl155|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jennyholzer|8 months ago|reply
Oracle is a parasite.
[+] [-] Fogest|8 months ago|reply
I guess I don't feel bad not knowing this though, as the language really does have nothing to do with the company it's insane that they even hold a trademark for it.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] moritzwarhier|8 months ago|reply
I'd donate.
[+] [-] wiremine|8 months ago|reply
https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/code-review-on-pr...
[+] [-] adamredwoods|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cr125rider|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] pezo1919|8 months ago|reply
Why we do not just use EcmaScript from now on in conversations and as a trend so the issue is solved. A joke to me.
[+] [-] pikuseru|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rswail|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] spullara|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bobajeff|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tolmasky|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] alberth|8 months ago|reply
There is some irony in that Ryan isn’t acknowledging Node.js own trademark in his post, given that he was the person who announced the Node.js trademark.
https://nodejs.org/en/blog/uncategorized/trademark
So he wants Node.js trademark to be acknowledged, but doesn’t acknowledge it himself.
Oracle wants the JavaScript trademark acknowledged, and he doesn’t want to acknowledge that either.
This all seems very silly to me.
[+] [-] moralestapia|8 months ago|reply
However, I do believe the word has been diluted and genericized and hope the USPTO chooses to release it.
A good argument to avoid losing a trademark to genericization is to show that there is an actual generic term that overlaps with the trademark, but then the trademark is not the generic term itself.
Examples:
Nintendo → Video Game Console
Post-it → Sticky Note
Xerox → Photocopy
etc ...
In the case of JavaScript, there's no generic term to allude to; JavaScript is the generic term, which might weigh towards the argument of genericization.
[+] [-] KingOfCoders|8 months ago|reply
Google results:
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mbStavola|8 months ago|reply
To file for a mark or renewal of a mark and claim ownership of something you do not own is insane. It's not like this is a 5 second process or that there isn't a lot of money riding on this-- this sort of thing is super serious and incredibly important! You're telling me no one at Oracle or their counsel was able to catch this in review before filing? As far as I can tell, in the renewal for the mark[1], Node.js was the sole specimen provided as an example of mark use! Come on...
EDIT: Sorry, correction, they have three specimens attached to the renewal, two of which seem to be the same. Clearly an insurmountable amount of work and too complicated to validate.
[0]: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92086835&pty=CAN&eno...
[1]: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn75026640&docI...
[+] [-] thayne|8 months ago|reply
I think the key is
> It is well-settled that the proper ground for cancellation is the underlying question of whether the mark was in use in commerce, not the adequacy of the specimens
If I understand correctly (and I very well might not), that means that it doesn't matter whether some of the provided specimens were fraudulent or not, in order to revoke the trademark the burden of proof is to show the entire trademark claim was fraudulent, and if there was no fraud, then the trademark wouldn't have been granted.
Deno might be able to make a stronger argument of fraud, if they could show without that specimen USPTO would have rejected the application, or that the other specimen was also invalid, but that would delay the proceedings and require more work for them.
[+] [-] remoroid|8 months ago|reply
[1]https://javascriptformatter.com