News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored. Parent comment

Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by ggm on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @06:26PM (#42940751)
If you want to personify the mistaken belief "if a company can make money legally then it is obliged in law to do it, to maximise shareholder value" thing: Oracle is that company. There is only one goal. Immediate reporting cycle uptick benefit. There is no other goal.

I can think of almost no play they have made in the market which has any longterm net beneficial outcome for the entire market, despite "grow a bigger market" being a thing. We would have ZFS in a lot more places, if Oracle hadn't made a short term licence play, and muddied the waters.

We used to hate on a range of companies about their IBM like qualities (market dominance, bad behaviour inside the law) but now, IBM is a pale shadow, and Oracle has taken the crown.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by spuz on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @08:10PM (#42942019)
I wish I could agree that Oracle are somehow acting in the interest of their shareholders but I fail to see how they benefit by spending hundreds of thousands on lawyers to try to protect a trademark that makes them zero revenue and on the whole damages their brand.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by cmgbhm on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @09:01PM (#42942573)
If they win, there’s a forever revenue stream to extract and they keep their TM law sharp.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by thot_experiment on Wednesday February 05, 2025 @12:12PM (#42951732)
There's no revenue stream, JavaScript is the colloquial term used to refer to ECMAScript, ain't nobody paying Oracle if they started trying to enforce it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by wrs on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @09:01PM (#42942578)
It intimidates anyone who might want to sue them for anything else. Being widely known for your scorched earth policy can be pretty effective. (Certain "we never settle" insurance companies do this too.)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by cyberax on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @09:55PM (#42943110)
Even during the darkest days, IBM made reliable unkillable overengineered stuff.

Oracle has been making only lawsuits for a while.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by jclulow on Wednesday February 05, 2025 @01:19AM (#42944586)
Since at least the introduction of the DeWitt clause, if not earlier!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by enpera on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @11:25PM (#42943777)
The likelihood of the JavaScript trademark bringing any real benefit to Oracle in the future is close to zero, but the legal costs of taking it to court are significant. For the sake of mere spite and mean-spiritedness they seem to be trying to waste the company's money.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by thayne on Wednesday February 05, 2025 @12:20AM (#42944154)
Yes, the only upside I can see for them is it reinforces their reputation of being ruthless in legal proceedings. Which you might consider a good thing if you subscribe to the "it is better to be feared than loved" philosophy.
[ Parent | on HN ]