> we’ll start discovery to show how "JavaScript" is widely recognized as a generic term
But "JavaScript" is always referring to the same thing, it is not a term for "in browser scripting". Am I missing something?
There isn't even such a thing as "Oracle JavaScript", they are sitting on the trademark without using it.
The fact that you and everyone else still call this thing we have now JavaScript is exactly why this trademark thing is stupid and most likely invalid.
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.
Yes, ECMAScript, standardized here: https://ecma-international.org/publications-and-standards/st...
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.
"Oh, I've never heard of ECMAScript before".
Well, it's a thing. You'll have to trust me on that one.
The grounds are non-use. Oracle doesn’t actually offer a “JavaScript” product.
And Oracle doesn't control any of that. The only thing I know of that Oracle has related to JavaScript is Graal.js, which is just yet another implementation of ECMAScript, and didn't even exist for most of the time Sun and Oracle held the trademark.
People may not like Oracle, but the arguments against them owning the trademark on the grounds that it’s used to refer to the thing that it actually is, are extemely weak. I can see the non-use argument being a viable path though.
IANAL, but my understanding is that it actually is, if it becomes common enough, and Apple doesn't try to prevent such usage of the term. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark.
And to follow up - how does Oracle use "JavaScript" in trade?
People using JavaScript without getting permission are potentially infringing on Oracle's trademark. Many companies with trademarks tenaciously defend the trademark to protect it from being revoked. This doesn't appear to be the case with JavaScript. After usage becomes widespread, a company risks losing their trademark because they did not actively enforce the use of the trademark.
This video explains it from Velcro's perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY
Content advisory: there is one swear word in it that is bleeped out.
Near the end they mention some other trademarks, and adding to the fun they bleep out those too - and even put CENSORED overlays on the singers' mouths.
They also made a followup video that is just as delightful (and slightly more NSFW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWMQLMiTPk
And here is a fun article about some other companies' friendly alternatives to the traditional C&D letter:
https://www.cll.com/OnMyMindBlog/creativity-can-make-tradema...
Went to Wikipedia:
"Velcro is a *British privately held*" company".
Makes slightly more sense now, don't think it would have seen the light of day if either of those were different.
https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle
TL;DR: Oracle has failed to defend the trademark, or even to use it in trade.