Oracle files notice of appearance for JavaScript trademark [pdf]
deno.com
deno.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc...
[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Le...
One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head'."
The other two original Power Mac models had the code names “Piltdown Man” and “Cold Fusion”—not exactly the sort of thing someone like Sagan would want to be implicitly associated with.
The Sagan bit was funny because Apple engineers transitioned from loving him to resenting him :)
Based purely on the Wikipedia description, Sagan's request seems reasonable, from a moral perspective at least. I have no idea why Apple (or its engineers) would be so butthurt about it.
The joy can only go so far, IMHO. If the namesake person asked for it, you comply—pretty simple. I can totally see why people aren’t comfortable with their name being used without permission, even without the endorsement concern.
Why are we holding the victim to a higher standard now?
In my view, what the Apple engineers did was inappropriate, especially when they doubled down after being asked to stop. It’s not unlike typical bullying behaviors seen in high school ("it's just a joke, why so serious?"). Jokes on someone else are only funny when they approve them.
Not approving the joke because you can't take a joke is a moral flaw.
But a legal response to some light hearted rudeness? That was him taking things to a significantly lower standard.
If instead, he had used “Butthead Astronomer” to refer to himself on occasion, that would have only added to his (already significant and well deserved) legendary status.
What is this supposed to mean?
Usually if you file a patently frivolous lawsuit, you get sanctioned.
Is it just a bureaucratic step where Oracle says "we're not ignoring this"?
The rules of civil procedure generally require that the defendant in a suit file a response within a prescribed timeline, even if the response just amounts to saying, "yeah, we're here". That's what the "as required pursuant to 37 CFR §2.119 and TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE §113.04" part is about. I'm not familiar with the specifics about federal procedure for trademark suits, and I'm not going to go look, but if you chase those references down, you're almost sure to find something like this. In some jurisdictions, failure to enter an appearance is reason enough for the other party to request a hearing to be granted default judgment, and for the court to set a date for the hearing, hear the request, and then grant it unless the defendant had a good reason for not filing a timely response.
(The other comments aren't strictly wrong, but mere information about who a given party's lawyers are is generally communicated through notices for designation of counsel.)
It would be silly not to, since in this case (before the TTAB) it would lead to a default judgement that would be very hard to get out of.
Even if you later choose to release the trademark, you'd still want to see all the court documents, etc.
Oracle should be assumed to always take the greediest and most antisocial position in any legal or economic matter.
To be clear, the trademark is their asset. Sun trademarked the name JavaScript in 1997, for reasons assumed to be related to Java, probably in anticipation of a use case that never arrived. This had nothing to do with the existing language JavaScript which was created in 1993, and had no relationship with Sun.
> Obviously it has value or somebody wouldn’t be trying to cancel it.
"Somebody" is trying to cancel it because Oracle have been blindly defending it, not because it has any business value to Oracle. The JavaScript language has precedence, and today it's sheer popularity and major role in open web standard means Oracle could not possibly benefit from using it for any business purpose due to the strong existing association. It's only practical purpose is to torment the JavaScript community and further cement Oracle's reputation as a litigious cancer of the technology world.
They blindly defend it because they are a mindless lawnmower that consumed it, not because they are the wiser and know it has value.
Interesting indeed.
> In the United States, the general rule is known as the "American Rule" - each party typically pays their own attorney's fees and court costs, regardless of who wins the case. This is different from many other countries that follow the "English Rule" where the losing party pays the winner's legal fees.
In the US there is a tendency to make private civil suits for damages a big part of this, and to rely less on government agencies to investigate and take enforcement actions.
In much of the rest of the world the is more of a tendency to have government agencies handle it. It's enough of a difference that people in the rest of the world often don't even know that a private civil suit is an option. (You can see this with GDPR. Article 79 gives individuals a right to sue, but most people seem to think their only option is to complain to a government data protection authority).
Anyway, since the US is depending on private civil suits to enforce rights the English rule of winner pays could greatly discourage those who are not well off (who are often the people most likely to have their rights violated) from suing when their rights violator has significantly more resources.
I can easily find a bunch of nearly identically worried ones.
See, e.g, https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91291646-OPP-4.pdf
In Claim 2, Deno shows Oracle basically just capture nodejs website and calms this trademark is still in use. How crazy this is.
Laughs in Larry Ellison
It is just transactional corporate logic. You do not give up something unless you get something of greater value in return. You do not do things for good will, you do things for PR, etc. and sure as hell don’t let them fly under the radar. If some middle or senior manager let that fly without a blessing from the top, they would be ostracized.
I’m not saying it’s right, but I’ve been part of that culture and understand it very well.
Part of owning trademarks is defending them, and Oracle has plenty, so the cost is de minimis.
Even if the trademark is not doing anything for them now, it provides optionally they would not otherwise have. It may also be a negotiation tool down the road.
“oracle’s trademark sucks, long live microsoft’s trademark”