zlacker

>>pavela+(OP)
Silly question: how are people negatively impacted by the trademark of "JavaScript"?

Because in practice, isn't this a bit like "Kleenex" - where everyone knows you mean "tissue" (EMCAScript).

>>albert+GK
It's less the fact that someone owns JS's trademark, and more that it's specifically Oracle (they got it when they bought Sun).

Oracle is an incredibly litigious company. Their awful reputation in this respect means that the JS ecosystem can never be sure they won't swoop in and attempt to demand rent someday. This is made worse by the army of lawyers they employ; even if they're completely in the wrong, whatever project they go after probably won't be able to afford a defense.

>>Stable+JM
The incredibly litigious company here is Deno. Deno sued on a whim, realized they were massively unprepared, then asked the public to fund a legal campaign that will benefit Deno themselves, a for-profit, VC-backed company.

This personal vendetta will likely end with the community unable to use the term JavaScript. Nobody should support this.

>>TeaVMF+AW
> This personal vendetta will likely end with the community unable to use the term JavaScript. Nobody should support this.

Why would that be the case, if not for Oracle's litigiousness?