I couldn't help but read wikipedia and wonder if you could call him a scheming schemer?

Eich started work at Netscape Communications Corporation in April 1995. He originally joined intending to put Scheme "in the browser", but his Netscape superiors insisted that the language's syntax resemble that of Java. As a result, Eich devised a language that had much of the functionality of Scheme, the object-orientation of Self, and the syntax of Java. He completed the first version in ten days in order to accommodate the Navigator 2.0 Beta release schedule. At first the language was called Mocha, but it was renamed LiveScript in September 1995 and finally – in a joint announcement with Sun Microsystems – it was named JavaScript in December.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Netscape

> Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.

It does spread like a disease, though. /s

"ES" seems to be the long term winning acronym ("ESM" for the module format, other things like that), so maybe something "backwards compatible" with that like "EverywhereScript" or "EternalScript"?

(Harder to find "JS" compatibles, too. "JunkScript"? I know a lot of people wouldn't mind that one, but it does seem too mean.)

You don't have to look far to find one language naming itself to associate itself with another language it isn't really related to. E.g. C# has very little in common with C. But, ironically, it's popularity likely played a role in the naming of J#. Not to mention all the flavors of BASIC that resemble virtually nothing like the original.

It needs to be WebScript of course!

How about "JahScript" since it is the lord of the scripting languages?

browserscript, since that's where it originated, even though it's outgrown that.

TFA:

> Dahl said Oracle’s ownership “has caused confusion and unnecessary barriers, including cease-and-desist letters sent to organizations for simply using the term ‘JavaScript’ in their names.” The USPTO filing marks a pivotal step toward freeing the JavaScript name from legal entanglements, Dahl said.

I can't see the plaintiff gaining anything really. Maybe he's just fed up and decided to do something about it.

[dead]

No, it wouldn't. Simple use of JavaScript somewhere isn't enough for this.

Oracle would need to show vigorous trademark enforcement. I use 'JavaScript' generically, with no reference to Oracle or a trademark, and have never heard from an Oracle lawyer. I had no idea who the current owner of the trademark was.

I bet 95% of people who use the term have no idea it has any connection to Oracle's legal department.

At this point, there are probably millions of .js files out there. If Oracle wished to enforce all of these moving to .es for ECMAScript, they would have needed to start that process a long, long time ago.

Oracle's own documentation uses this term generically:

https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/apex/22.1/aexjs/t...

To the contrary, a use like this doesn't support the trademark, but pretty much invalidates it entirely.

> Just a single example of "Javascript" written on a spec sheet of some product would be enough to defend the trademark.

Is that really true? Doesn’t it have to be used as a trademark? If they just mention the programming language in generic terms rather than as something specifically owned and sold by Oracle, would that really be enough? That’s exactly what you would expect from a generic term - that it would be used generically.