> It goes asks some AI to write a "Javascript: as She Is Spoke" junk book on Amazon just so they can hang on to the trademark.

IANAL, but I don't think that wouldn't be enough to keep the trademark.

Also the petition was a "we'll ask nicely first so we can all avoid the hastle and expense of legal procedings", they are now in the process of getting the trademark invalidated, but Oracle, illogically but perhaps unsurprisingly is fighting it.

Trademark law is kind of about hypotheticals though. The purpose of a trademark is to prevent theoretical damages from potential confusion, neither of which you ever have to show to be real

In this case the trademark existing and belonging to Oracle is creating more confusion than no trademark existing, so deleting it is morally right. And because Oracle isn't actually enforcing it it is also legally right

Imho this is just the prelude to get better press. "We filed a petition to delete the JavaScript trademark" doesn't sound nearly as good as "We collected 100k signatures for a letter to Oracle and only got silence, now we formally petition the USPTO". It's also a great opportunity to find pro-bono legal council or someone who would help fund the petition

It's the specter of a lawsuit that's the problem.

The other aspect here is that general knowledge (citation needed) says that if a company doesn't actively defend their trademark, they often won't be able to keep it if challenged in court. Or perhaps general knowledge is wrong.

JavaScriptScript?

Unless that suffixed version is itself already trademarked, like AppleScript.

Oracl3Script?

Afaik they already sued Deno: https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle2

Edit: Seems I'm incorrect, see below

> who would they sue

Anyone they feel like. Lawnmower gonna mow.

Your comment seems incredibly confused.

1. Oracle is the litigious one here. My favorite example is that time they attacked a professor for publishing less-than-glowing benchmarks of their database: https://danluu.com/anon-benchmark/ What's to stop them from suing anyone using the term JavaScript in a way that isn't blessed by them? That's what Deno is trying to protect against.

2. Deno is filing a petition to cancel the trademark, not claim it themselves. This would return it to the public commons.

It should be obvious from these two facts that any member of the public that uses JavaScript should support this, regardless of what they think of Deno-the-company.

> 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?

Hi Larry Ellison! Will you mow my lawn?

> POTS = Plain Old Telephony System I worked for NY Telephone for years in the '80s, and it was referred to there as "Plain Old Telephone Service" not System. Not that it's a big deal at this point!

> It's just a name, who gives a damn?

This is extremely ironic given that JavaScript was so named because people do give a damn about names so Netscape/Sun leveraged the Java success to push JS, hence they named it JAVAscript despite it having nothing to do with Java.

One reason it's less friendly is that lots people think it has anything to do with java.