this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
297 points (99.3% liked)

Programming

17532 readers
304 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This article makes for an interesting read. Here follow two early paragraphs for context:

Oracle controls the JavaScript trademark because in 2009 it acquired Sun Microsystems, which applied to trademark the name with the US Patent and Trademark Office back in 1995. The trademark was granted in 2000.

While the database giant does not use the name for any commercial products, its ownership of the trademark has led JavaScript-oriented organizations such as events biz JSConf to adopt branding that avoids the term. As the signatories to the letter observe, the world's most popular programming language therefore can't have a conference that mentions what it's about.

Toward the end, the article mentions an initiative to legally pursue Oracle for trademark abandonment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (7 children)

If it's such a problem, maybe we just collectively move on to ES or TypeScript nomenclature?

[โ€“] starshipwinepineapple 14 points 2 months ago

The article mentions that the letter indicated intent to petition with the USPTO to cancel the Javascript trademark due to abandonment. Hopefully that is successful since that seems to be the best outcome short of Oracle willingly forfeiting it.

load more comments (6 replies)