The entire point is that oracle has done nothing with the trademark - especially not being a good steward. What bizarro world are you living in?

▲ nurettin 5 days ago | parent [-]

> oracle has done nothing with the trademark

In my Bizarro world, that is a good thing. Not doing things includes:

    * Not monetizing 
    * Not advertising
    * No agendas
    * No lawsuits 
    * No enforcement (other than annoying organizations with C&D letters and then retracting them)

I would like it to remain as it is.

	▲	mmcclure 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I agree that Oracle has been a perfectly fine trademark holder in all of these regards in that they are entirely irrelevant to JavaScript and have been for as long as I can remember. The point here is that them not doing those things would be codified. Deno's not trying to take the trademark from them for themselves, they're trying to get the USPTO to agree that JavaScript is a generic term at this point and unable to be trademarked or owned by any one entity. I'm not sure how that changes any of the bullet points you've got above. It's nice that points 4 and 5 would become completely impossible and not just improbable because the trademark owner currently doesn't care enough to do it.
	▲	davorak 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If they are not using the trademark for anything, at least by US law, I think they do not get to keep it. The point of trademarks is to promote the production of public good, and if they are not in use they are not producing public good, but will consume public resources, like people dealing with C&D letter or the current time and effort from the government on deno's filings.