8 ms·
Knowing Oracle, they will take it to court if they can. To paraphrase Cantrill, it's a company that behaves very much like a lawnmower.
by ndneighbor 2y ago
Knowing Oracle, they will take it to court if they can. To paraphrase Cantrill, it's a company that behaves very much like a lawnmower.
- ggm 2y agoIf 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.
- spuz 2y agoI 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.
- cmgbhm 2y agoIf they win, there’s a forever revenue stream to extract and they keep their TM law sharp.
- thot_experiment 2y agoThere'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.
- wrs 2y agoIt 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.)
- cyberax 2y agoEven during the darkest days, IBM made reliable unkillable overengineered stuff. Oracle has been making only lawsuits for a while.
- jclulow 2y agoSince at least the introduction of the DeWitt clause, if not earlier!
- enpera 2y agoThe 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.
- thayne 2y agoYes, 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.
- nhumrich 2y agoIt's pushed by a teenager and cuts grass?
- mbo 2y ago> Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle. — Brian Cantrill (https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s)
- chris_wot 2y ago[flagged]
- EMIRELADERO 2y agoI started to dislike that quote somewhat. Why should we celebrate the fact that our society doesn't place moral pressure onto executives? Why should we find it acceptable that this is the status quo?
- dwheeler 2y agoI urge you to watch the video to see the context. Cantrill does not think this is acceptable, never mind celebrated.
- Terr_ 2y agoYou could interpret it the other way: Such executives don't have moral protection.
- robertlagrant 2y agoNo one is celebrating anything.
- 2y ago