decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:03 AM EDT

You have to admit SCO is never boring. Now they have applied to register a trademark on the word mark "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES". Once again, it was Rand McNatt who noticed.

Naturally, that raises some questions, like who are these people, anyway?

Here I thought they were pretending to be oldSCO, what with celebrating a quarter century of "UNIX Solutions" at SCOForum beginning August 1. And shazaam. Here, up they pop with the trademark on UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. So, what do you think? You think the name SCO isn't helping them get business and they'd like a new identity? Or worse? They're maybe addicted to litigation and can't sleep unless they are suing someone or getting sued? I'm thinking the Open Group might be interested in this news.

UPDATE: 9:00 PM

Groklaw member thpr has found a trademark opposition case that is ongoing, involving the X/Open Group, and the other side, an individual, Wayne R. Gray, who filed for the mark INUX, is using SCO FUD to argue that SCO owns the UNIX trademark, if anyone can. FUD tends not to prevail in courtrooms, but note particularly that the exhibits on document 29, which he links to below, include the trademark assignments. INUXproclaims itself a Linux company. Maybe it's like LinuxInsider is a Linux media outlet? From the INUX website:

"This uniquely powerful computer software system will embrace and extend not just the traditional single-user desktop environment, but entire enterprise security, compatibility, and integration solutions, including Microsoft® Windows®."

INUX is a privately held Florida company.

You can see the assignments here as well:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=registration&entry=1390593
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&rno=1390593

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=registration&entry=1392203
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&rno=1392203

And convince me please, if you can, that this is all just coincidental. Here's what thpr found:

"I went searching around, and found a pending case in front of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91122524&pty=OPP

"Opposition by X/Open Group to the proposed mark of 'INUX' is resulting in the claimant saying that UNIX can no longer be trademarked. This doesn't seem like a big deal, except the case took a wild turn of events in December 2003:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91122524&pty=OPP&eno=29

"Notice the claim at the bottom of page 2 of this PDF (that SCO is claiming ownership of the UNIX trademark) and that it references the IBM/SCO documents [specifically IBM/SCO 25] (starting on page 38 of the PDF) The FUD is spreading. This individual is now using SCO's arguments against X/Open Group. . . .

"Here's the schedule for this trademark hearing: (from the end of the latest Board decision 7/22/04):

  • THE PERIOD FOR DISCOVERY TO CLOSE: 8/31/04 (Discovery is open directed solely to the matters arising from applicant's amended pleadings, as discussed more fully in this order and in the Board's April 12, 2004 decision.
  • Testimony period for plaintiff in the opposition to close: (opening thirty days 11/29/04 prior thereto)
  • Testimony period for defendant in the opposition and as plaintiff in the counterclaim to close: 1/28/05 (opening thirty days prior thereto)
  • Testimony period for defendant in the counterclaim and its rebuttal testimony as plaintiff in the opposition to close: 3/29/05 (opening thirty days prior thereto)
  • Rebuttal testimony period for plaintiff in the counterclaim to close: 5/13/05 (opening fifteen days prior thereto)
  • Briefs shall be due as follows: [See Trademark rule 2.128(a)(2)].
  • Brief for plaintiff in the opposition shall be due: 7/12/05
  • Brief for defendant in the opposition and as plaintiff in the counterclaim shall be due: 8/11/05
  • Brief for defendant in the counterclaim and its reply brief (if any) as plaintiff in the opposition shall be due: 9/10/05
  • Reply brief (if any) for plaintiff in the counterclaim shall be due: 9/25/05

[Resuming original article:]

Here's the trademark:

Word Mark
UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES

Goods and Services
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer software; namely, computer operating system software, computer language compilers, and translators, computer networking software, transaction processing software; graphical user interface software; computer graphics software; computer applications software; data management software; software development tools and environments; computers and computer hardware; providing web services

Standard Characters Claimed

Mark Drawing Code - (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number - 78438912
Filing Date - June 21, 2004
Current Filing Basis - 1B
Original Filing Basis - 1B
Owner - (APPLICANT) The SCO Group, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE Suite 100 355 South 520 West Lindon UTAH 84042
Attorney of Record - Wesley L. Austin
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator - LIVE

You'll note it's a 1B. When your basis for filing is 1B it means you haven't used it in commerce yet -- that would be 1A, Use in Commerce -- but you intend to:

Intent to Use

Check this box if actual use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate (i.e., interstate commerce, territorial commerce, or commerce between the United States and a foreign country) has not yet occurred, but instead there is simply a bona fide (good faith) intention to use the mark in commerce at a later time after filing of this application. The intention to use may be by the applicant, the applicant's related company, or the licensee of the applicant. You may file under more than one basis, but you may not file an application based on both use in commerce under §1(a) and a bona fide intention to use a mark in commerce under §1(b) for the identical goods and or services (e.g., you cannot list "shirts" under Section 1(b) and Section 1(a), but you could list "shirts" under Section 1(b) and "pants" under Section 1(a)). NOTE: If filing under this basis, you will be required to submit a demonstration of use (i.e., submission of a form with an additional fee and a specimen (sample) of said use) later in the prosecution process of the application.

Use in Commerce

Choose this basis if actually already using the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may regulate (i.e., interstate commerce, territorial commerce, or commerce between the United States and a foreign country) in connection with the goods and/or services identified in the application. You must be able to provide the date of first use anywhere and the date of use in commerce that the U.S. Congress may regulate, and a specimen (sample) of said use. Use may be by the applicant, the applicant's related company, or a licensee of the applicant. You may file under more than one basis, but you may not file an application based on both use in commerce under §1(a) and a bona fide intention to use a mark in commerce under §1(b) for the identical goods and or services (e.g., you cannot list "shirts" under Section 1(b) and Section 1(a), but you could list "shirts" under Section 1(b) and "pants" under Section 1(a)).

The UNIX Systems Laboratories mark, the one USL owned, was abandoned in 1993:

Word Mark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES

Goods and Services
(ABANDONED) IC 009. US 026 038. G & S: computer software; namely, computer operating system software, computer language compilers, and translators, computer networking software, transaction processing software; graphical user interface software; computer graphics software; computer applications software; data management software; software development tools and environments; computers and computer hardware. FIRST USE: 19900601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900601

Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 74354526
Filing Date - February 1, 1993
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1A
Owner - (APPLICANT) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 190 River Road Summit NEW JERSEY 07901
Attorney of Record - Frank L. Politano
Prior Registrations - 1390593;1392203
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD
Abandonment Date - August 18, 1993

Of course, that was the year USL was purchased by Novell, in June of 1993.

UPDATE: I missed something. This next one was registered in 1993 and cancelled in 2000. Here it is:

Word Mark - UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES

Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 026 038. G & S: computer software; namely, computer operating system software, computer language compilers, and translators, computer networking software, transaction processing software; graphical user interface software; computer graphics software; data management software; software development tools; namely, computer software used to develop computer programs; computers and computer hardware. FIRST USE: 19900601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900601

Mark Drawing Code (1) -TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 74068206
Filing Date - June 1, 1990
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1B
Published for Opposition- October 29, 1991
Registration Number - 1780785
Registration Date - July 6, 1993
Owner - (REGISTRANT) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 190 River Road Summit NEW JERSEY 07901
Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record - Frank L. Politano
Prior Registrations - 1390593;1392203
Disclaimer - NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "SYSTEM LABORATORIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD
Cancellation Date - July 3, 2000

You'll notice that it references two other registrations, and the first, 1390593, for the mark UNIX, looks like this:

Typed Drawing Word Mark - UNIX Goods and Services - IC 009. US 026. G & S: COMPUTERS. FIRST USE: 19841214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841214
Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 73537419
Filing Date - May 13, 1985
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1A
Published for Opposition - August 27, 1985
Change In Registration - CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
Registration Number - 1390593
Registration Date - April 22, 1986
Owner - (REGISTRANT) AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK 550 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022

(LAST LISTED OWNER) UNIXSYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF DELAWARE 295 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE BASKING RIDGE NEW JERSEY 07920

Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record - FRANK L. POLITANO
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text - SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator - LIVE

The second reference, 1392203, is also to a registration of the mark UNIX:

Word Mark - UNIX
Goods and Services - IC 009. US 038. G & S: COMPUTER PROGRAMS. FIRST USE: 19721214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19721214
Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 73544900
Filing Date - June 24, 1985
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1A
Published for Opposition - October 29, 1985
Registration Number - 1392203
Registration Date - May 6, 1986
Owner - (REGISTRANT) AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK 550 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022

(LAST LISTED OWNER) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF DELAWARE 295 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE BASKING RIDGE NEW JERSEY 07920

Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record - FRANK L. POLITANO
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text - SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator - LIVE

All of which goes to prove that the closer you look at the paperwork back then, the muddier the picture gets. Brenda has just noticed something else. Novell's web site lists all their trademarks (unbelievably slowly). SCO has another live trademark, by the way, SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS, proving once again that this company has no sense of irony.

If any of you attend SCOForum, naturally we'd love a report. You may think no one here would be going, but I heard rumors SCO was practically paying people to attend. So if you go, please share the news.


  


SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES" | 528 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
News of the Strange
Authored by: kberrien on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Intentially or not, this will help to confuse the history of Unix further, and
the history of Sco, oldSco, Caldera, et al.

Excuse my paranoia, but I can't help thinking there is something devious in this
move...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT
I certainly thought the Open Group would have something to say about the use of
the word Unix, even in a trademark. Make me wonder if SCOG asked them?
(Su-u-u-re they did).

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice Trolls here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:35 PM EDT
and other funny stuff.
Like the article being 1 AM and first post at 1 PM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG trademark request too similar to UNIX
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT
Open Group will certainly be interested. They own the UNIX trademark, which is
so similar to the proposed trademark that it should be denied on that ground
alone.

Open group has already objected to SCOG's misleading use of UNIX, and that is an
additional reason to deny the application.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT
Anyone fancy putting in for a trademark on "Windows System Laboratories"?

Peter

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: duratkin on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT
"UNIX SUING LITIGATION" Co.



---
All good penquins love free stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: stewart on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT
Can SCO do this. As far as i am aware USL was sold lock, stock and barrel to
novell. Were any trademarks registered for USL, and if so, did Novell actually
sell any of them to old SCO. We know they gave the open group the UNIX
trademark. What about any others?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Stuff
Authored by: TerryC on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT
Put your OT links and comments here.

---
Terry

[ Reply to This | # ]

How Are TMs Contested?
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT
Like couldn't this registration be challenged based on X, Y or Z?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: midav on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:55 PM EDT
Honorable Samuel B. Kent put it best in his 'brilliant' Bradshaw v Philips Court Order, 'But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Errors and stuff here.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:56 PM EDT
I assume this is a typo:

The United Systems Laboratories mark, the one USL owned...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT
U Sue Linux!

---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
Say No to SCO.
IMHO IANAL IAALINUXGEEK

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX still doesn't get it
Authored by: PJP on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT
They obviously still think they have some sort of future business based upon
whatever it is they purchased from oldSCO, and appear to want to play games with
names to infer that they have greater legitimacey than they really do.

But what they don't seem to get is that they have NO future. They are doomed.
Things will not stop now until SCOX is bankrupt, its officers behind bars and
the case clearly made that what they really do own is minimal, and of close to
zero value.

This would seem to be a very promising psychological study for anyone willing to
spend the time talking to Darl and Co.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT
Curious and curiouser.

My first thought is that this is SCOG's first step in reopening the USL vs BSD settlement. But I can't picture any attempt lasting more than a nanosecond in any court of law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can they do that? What is the law?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:13 PM EDT
What is the law on how you abandon a trademark and on whether someone can just
step in an use it.

This seems a little fishy to me. I can't imagine that this kind of thing hasn't
happened before or that its really legal.

Does a trademark have to be registered to be protected? I didn't think it did if
it was well established.

Corporate Identity Theft.

I wonder how many old and well remembered names have been abandoned over the
years which could be resurrected and resold.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Typed drawing" vs. "Standard character mark"
Authored by: reuben on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT

I was wondering about the difference between the "(4) Standard character mark" claimed by SCO and the "(1) Typed drawing" originally claimed by the real USL. It turns out that these are basically the same thing, but the PTO's rules have changed for consistency with an international trademark system called the Madrid Protocol. Therefore this is not a significant difference between the new-SCO and real-USL applications. Here's a short article in case anybody else was wondering about the same thing:

Madrid Protocol Overview from Parr Waddoups

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quick! Someone reanimate
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT
The Jacquard Loom TM before Darl gets his mitts on it! Lord help us.

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brilliant!!
Authored by: QTlurker on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
As "Unix System Labs", the SCOG now obviously owns all the Unix stuff.
They no longer need to be concerned about copyright transfers from Novell cause
they own them all <evil_laugh="rah ha ha"/>.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: jerm on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
At the least, this sounds like we'll be seeing the death of another venerable
name in the near future. First they destroy Caldera, then they destroy the SCO
brand. Now, they're hoping to piggy-back on USL, which given this company's
penchant for alienating customers, means it will be destroyed too in short
order.

At the worst, SCO is hoping to use their shiny, new USL name to confuse folks
(read: Judges) in future litigation.

I hope the Open Group sues them trademark misappropriation.

jerm

---
Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should
be hard to understand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

cross dressing
Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
SCOG just can't stop dressing up in someone else's clothes. They are sheep in
wolves' clothing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • cross dressing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT
    • cross dressing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT
  • cross dressing - Authored by: scott_R on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:31 PM EDT
  • cross dressing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT
  • cross dressing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:29 AM EDT
  • cross dressing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:37 PM EDT
SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Rasyr on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
Even though this is far-far-fetched, I would not put the following line of
reasoning beyond the idiocy shown by those who are running SCO.

*********************
begin faux reasoning
*********************
We have registered the trademark, "UNIX System Laboratories",
therefore we can now claim heritage back to the orginal USL, and we can also now
claim that everything once copyrighted by the original USL now belongs to us
because we now can use "UNIX System Laboratories" and being the only
entity using that, it means that all copyrights registered to such an entity
belong to us now.
*******************
end faux reasoning
*******************

Circular logic is the only thing that SCO can keep going round...

[ Reply to This | # ]

USL should stand for...
Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:38 PM EDT

"Unusually Shrill Lying". This would create much more memory recognition for TSG, IMHO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS?
Authored by: pointwood on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT
You sure it isn't "SCO SUES YOUR BUSINESS"?

:P

---
Pointwood
JabberID: Pointwood@jabber.shd.dk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where's my coke bottle, I've got an idea ...
Authored by: Kaemaril on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:05 PM EDT

Hold on, how can they actually get away with this? I thought there was already a UNIX trademark?

Wouldn't this (deliberately) lead to public confusion and a possible/probable dilution of the existing Unix trademark?

If they can get away with this, what's to stop me trademarking "Coca-Cola System Labs"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unixware is only certified by Open as a UNIX 95
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:11 PM EDT
Unlike Solaris and AIX, which are UNIX 03 certified.
This kind of means that SCO Unixware is 9 years out of date.
They've also failed to certify for LDAP, Corba and so on and so forth (unix.org
-> Open's web site).

Is it any wonder they are finding it hard to hold on to customers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rear Attack?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:21 PM EDT
While M$ has everyone amuzed with SCO, et.al., who minding the store? Or are
there enough people watching elsewhere for M$ not to strike from behind?

Yes, I'm Paranoid too.

wb

[ Reply to This | # ]

A great opportunity for reverse FUD! :)
Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:22 PM EDT

Now that Cald^H^H^H^HSCOG is pretending to be USL, we can engage in a little reverse FUD: USL already failed to establish any copyright claims when they sued BSD. The judge in the USL case opined that there were probably no valid copyrights left in UNIX. USL quickly settled, out of fear that they'd lose the entire case. Why is USL now re-litigating the same case against IBM/AZ/etc.? :)

I think it's important to emphasize the "re" in "re-litigating USL v. BSD". Make them point out that they're not the same USL. Then it'll be that much harder for them to turn around and claim they are the same USL for some other purposes.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The plot thickens...
Authored by: MikeA on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT
My guess is that they are planning on changing their company "tagline". Since they were having trouble with saying "the owner of the Unix operating system", they are instead going to bill themselves as SCO - Home of Unix System Laboratories" or some nonsense like that. That's what I would do if I was a jerk. I doubt they are going for a name change, that would be too absurd.......unless, of course they have realized that the name SCO doesn't exactly help them anymore. Nah.

To me, this seems to be an attempt to confuse the contract issue with the Novell APA, since that case alone is the pivotal point in this whole debacle. If they lose that, they lose everything.

It is interesting to note that USL first became a company the same year that they are developing SysV R4 and Linus developed Linux. The very next year is when Novell announced plans to acquire USL. From this website

1991 UNIX System Laboratories (USL) becomes a company - majority-owned by AT&T. Linus Torvalds commences Linux development. Solaris 1.0 debuts.
1992 SVR4.2 USL releases UNIX System V Release 4.2 (Destiny). October - XPG4 Brand launched by X/Open. December 22nd Novell announces intent to acquire USL. Solaris 2.0 ships.
1993 4.4BSD 4.4BSD the final release from Berkeley. June 16 Novell acquires USL.

Is it possible that they could try some funny legal nonsense with the wording of the original transfer of assets from USL to Novell, and confuse the issue further by claiming to be USL? That would effectively bypass at least two other asset transfers and cut Novell off at the pass. Think about it: The APA between Novell and OldSCO is suspect, so SCO doesn't want to rely on it. Likewise, no one has ever seen the APA between OldSCO and Caldera/SCOG, so that agreement is kinda shaky too (especially when you consider that if the Novell APA is declared invalid, then any subsequent ones are too.)

But what if SCOG went "back-in-time" and tried to attack the issue before then...back at the original point of sale to Novell. That would circumvent any problems they had with the later contracts.

Its just crazy enough that it might work.

My bet; SCOG is going to re-file a completely different attack in the Novell case because they have to, and they are going to challenge Novell's ownership in the first place. I know - I'm crazy.

Oh, and in other news.....is this statement accurate? I thought the MyDoom attack on SCO was one of the later variations:

"Originally crafted by a German high school student in January, 2004, with the explicit purpose of denying access to servers of SCO Group (SCOX ) because of its dispute over the Linux operating system source code, MyDoom has lived on as hackers have rebuilt it multiple times."

article here

---
Change is merely the opportunity for improvement.....
but I can't think of a better signature yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If I were SCO...
Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT
...I would sell my Unix business. So long as SCO is associated with it, it's going to be tough to land new customers. Their Unix business is worth more owned by someone else then it is owned by SCO.

Labelling their Unix business with something that does not contain the SCO label might be a first step. Certainly the Unix business would become easier to sell, and thus more valuable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:24 PM EDT
Given that UNIX was intended to be a pun on Eunuchs probably
EUNUCHS SYSTEMS LABORATORY would be more appropriate...

Also gives them more reach .. right to the time of creation of UNIX!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell didn't sell USL trademark
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT
Novell did NOT sell USL trademark to Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

From APA

Schedule 1.1(a) Assets (Page 3 of 4)

V. Intellectual property - Trademarks UNIX and UnixWare as and to the extent held by Seller (excluding any compensation Seller receives with respect of the license granted to X/Open regarding the UNIX trademark).

...

Schedule 1.1(b) Excluded Assets (Page 2 of 2)

...

V. Intellectual Property:

A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.

I'm not aware of any Amendment (ala Amendment 2) which contains any muddying of the clarity that USL trademark was not included in the sale

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:26 PM EDT

How clever, Darl.

Now you'll pretend you're oldUSL and sue people. ("Drat! Those businesses have discovered our secret identity. Now we'll have to find a new one.")

Nice business plan. Um, if I were you, I'd expect a call from the MBA program at UofI. I think they'll be wanting the degree back that they gave you.

If scrounging the ash heap of business history is your idea of innovation and providing value to your shareholders, might I suggest some other company names that are no longer in use. Perhaps you could do something with "Studebaker" or "Nash". No wait... the courts in Detroit might see through those. Hey! What about "Digital"? That might be available. I'll bet there's some Ultrix users out there you can go after. They might even be using Linux nowadays!

[ Reply to This | # ]

USL/Lindows
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT
ok, a couple of thoughts.
1. no one will do business with TSOG, they are too well known now. so they are
going to do with The SCO Group what they did with Caldera. a shell game. start
taking notes, because when they dump the legally and financially tainted TSCOG
and reemerge as USL, they will claim they did non of those things.

2. if Linspire can't use Lindows, why can SCOG use USL?

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happened to the real USL?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:43 PM EDT

There used to be, oh maybe 10 or 12 years ago, another Unix System Laboratories
that also owned the 'Unix' name. If they still exist in some form they be
interested to know about this potential 'misappropration' of the 'Unix' name.

John Horn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is that part of Novell's purchase from ATT?
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:58 PM EDT


Is this another attempt to grab what belongs to Novell?
Was the trademark transferred to Novell?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Come on PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:01 PM EDT
You blow your credibility when you make up stuff like this

;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: blang on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:09 PM EDT
There is a more recent registration cancelled 2000:
Current Search:
S2: (Unix System Laboratories)[COMB] docs: 4 occ: 24
Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 78438912 UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES TARR LIVE
2 74354526 UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES TARR DEAD
3 74068206 1780785 UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES TARR DEAD
4 74068205 UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES TARR DEAD


http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=8udas3.3.3

The text of the last one is:

Typed Drawing
Word Mark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 026 038. G & S: computer
software; namely, computer operating system software, computer language
compilers, and translators, computer networking software, transaction processing
software; graphical user interface software; computer graphics software; data
management software; software development tools; namely, computer software used
to develop computer programs; computers and computer hardware. FIRST USE:
19900601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900601
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74068206
Filing Date June 1, 1990
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition October 29, 1991
Registration Number 1780785
Registration Date July 6, 1993
Owner (REGISTRANT) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 190
River Road Summit NEW JERSEY 07901
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Frank L. Politano
Prior Registrations 1390593;1392203
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "SYSTEM
LABORATORIES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date July 3, 2000


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT
At what point does all of The SCO Group manipulations
take on the legal charactics of fraud?

Also at what point can The SCO Group be proscituted
under RICO.

"In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress' goal
was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the
nation's economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to
destroy the Mafia. "

http://www.ricoact.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is the registered owner of
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT
<big><big><big>UNIX</big></big></big>

<small><small><small>SYSTEM
LABORATORIES</small></small></small>

See what I'm saying?

[ Reply to This | # ]

It relates to DCX case - check the dates
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:28 PM EDT
DCX says in their initial summary disposition motion, that they're not even sure
if SCO is the successor to USL, among other things.


Look at the dates

- 17th June SCO files their opposition to DCX motion (with the Broderick
affidavit claiming to be successor to USL among other things)

- 21st June SCO files for a trademark on "USL"


Okay not exactly the same day, but allowing for posting, filing, etc. It is
quite likely that the trade application was sent on 17th June too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The 3 SCOges - Liar, Surley, and Mo' (as in mo' money)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT
AKA Darl, Blake, and Boies

That's IF (and a big if at that) you believe SCOG that the trademark was
abandoned when they say it was.

Did the Trademark Lapse?
What caused it to become "abandoned"

Remember - the 3 SCOGes are so apt to lie that nothing they say can be believed
at face value. nyuk nyuk nyuk

And Yes, we all know 'in our gut' that they intend to try pulling the wool over
the eyes of the IT world by claiming that now that they "Own" USL that
all the USL copyrights in UNIX are theirs.

OR

Try and sue LINUX distros because LINUX is too close to UNIX in name and
therefore a violation of their trademark.

OR

perhaps once they "own" USL, they will try to wrestle the trademark
UNIX from the Open Group with the lame theory that they own the USL trademark,
and therefore the UNIX trademark.

OR

The apocolypse is upon us and DARLing boy is just warming up for the final show
;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: MS / McAfee Security [sic]
Authored by: maco on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT
On my father's computer he recieved an email that McAffee and Comcast offering
him an extension(?) for anti-virus and firewall software for one year for
$29.95.

Wanting to (help) secure his computer, I followed the link, but was promptly
told that I needed to be using IE 5.0 or above! Now I'm thinking, do I really
want to buy security software from a company that will not permit me to use a
more secure browser?

I'm still astonished.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TSCOG == "SCO" == "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Tomas on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT
If SCO gets the trademark registration approved they can have one little office
in the corner do business under that name (I.E.: "USL, a division of
SCO").

If they do that, they can resend those 1500 or 3000 (or whatever the number
really is) letters out again to all those customers, like DaimlerChrysler, who
had contracts with USL.

If they introduce themselves in those letters as "UNIX System Laboratories
(USL), now a division of The SCO Group in Lindon Utah" and talk about the
contract the customer once had with USL and ask for information/confirmation,
they are likely to get a better response.

TSCOG may be vile, but they do learn, and in this case they appear to have
learned something from the SCO v DCC case.

Then again, even flatworms have been shown to learn...

---
Tom
Engineer (ret.)
"Friends don't let friends use Microsoft."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: greybeard on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:57 PM EDT
Well SCO keeps acting like they would like to redefine or re-litigate the ATT
.v. UC Regents to make it come out the way think it should have. Since AT&T
is still going concern, maybe this is the closest that they could come. Wonder
if AT&T also dropped ATTIS?

It would be an education to sit in on some of the brainstorming sessions that
come up with these things.

---
-greybeard-

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT
Perhaps this move has more to do with the SVRX licensees as the contract is
between USL and the customers. One of the issues in the DC case was that DC
didn't know who TSG were and therefore had to determine their rights to ask for
certification.

It may also be a way to claim that all SVRX licenses are with TSG directly and
therefore they must own the copyrights and the right to modify the contracts,
although this argument will fail as soon as the fact that 100% of the royalties
are remitted to Novell and classed as Novell's revenue according to the APA is
presented.

On a side issue relating to the APA and the Novell litigation, I recently read
the APA and discovered the following.

The contract states that the SVRX royalties are in Santa Cruz's name only and
title remains with Novell.

Schedule 1.1(b) the excluded assets includes the following

I. Any asset not listed on Schedule 1.1(a).....

VIII. All right, title and interest to the SVRX royalties, less the 5% fee
......

The first of these clauses would suggest that if Amendment 2 was intended to
transfer the copyrights that an amendment to the list of included assets would
need to have been made to Schedule 1.1(a) as well as the copyright exclusion in
Schedule 1.1(b).



[ Reply to This | # ]

My UNIX Trademark Research
Authored by: tredman on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT
Somebody else might be able to clarify this, but it doesn't look like "UNIX
SYSTEM LABORATORIES" is a registered trademark. It's simply a trademark
application. It has no registration number, like many of the other entries
containing the work UNIX in it. In fact, of all the REGISTERED trademarks with
the word UNIX in it, only the following are live:

UNIX-100: Reg #2668450, Unrelated to computers
UNIX: Reg #2534586, Unrelated to computers
UNIXWARE: Reg #1845474, registered by Unix System Laboratories, last listed
owner The Santa Cruz Organization.
UNIX: Reg #1392203, registered by American Telephone and Telegraph Company, last
registered owner Unix System Laboratories.
UNIX: Reg #1390593, registered by American Telephone and Telegraph Company, last
registered owner Unix System Laboratories.

Note the entry for registration number 1845474. Let the hysteria begin...

Tim

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intent to Use
Authored by: icebarron on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT
A PILE OF DUNG by any other name still smells the same...these guys ARE
psycotic!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correction: SCO Is *Attempting* To Register the Trademark "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:24 PM EDT
Actually, SCO filed their *application* to register the trademark UNIX SYSTEM
LABORATORIES on June 21, 2004. The application hasn't even been reviewed by an
examining attorney at the PTO yet.

As a preliminary matter, I note that they will be required to disclaim the words
"System Laboratories" as descriptive or generic (as USL did when they
first registered the mark).

In any event, assuming it gets through the ex parte review process, before SCO
acquires any legal rights in the trademark, the application will be published,
at which point any person who wants to pay a small fee and can claim to be
harmed by the registration will be able to oppose the registration in a
contested proceeding (for example, Novell, which seems to have acquired rights
to the trademark "Unix"). Suss will also have to start using the mark
before a registration will issue.

Thus, it's a little premature to say that SCO has registered this mark, since it
has to go through the registration process and survive any challenges from
anyone who wants to oppose the mark.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"whenever"?
Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:26 PM EDT
Whenever is a trademark of Novell? Next I'll find that someone has TM'd my login
name!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and oldLinus
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:35 PM EDT
What they *really* need to do is trademark the name "Linus Torvalds".
THEN they can rightfully claim to be the sucessor to oldLinus and finally start
collecting those licensing fees. Oh wait, Linus didn't write Linux. Foiled
again!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look at IBM, Sun or HP
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT
All of them carefully avoided to use "Unix" as part of the names of
their flavors (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX). Why is that? First of all, they had to
(trademark vs. licence).

But it is also because "Unix" was (and still seems to be) a higly
disputed name with no *exact* definition behind it (the "Unix-Wars" of
old). Work with the three mentioned above and you know what i mean. Even if they
could have used the name, i'd doubt they would have done so.

Therefore it is quite foolish to register any trademark etc. that contains
"Unix" unless you have a certain cause to do so. If i would be asked
to buy "Unix" i would immediately ask "Which one?". I see
the term "Unix" (as it stands alone) remembered negativly from way
back. I don't think you can make a fortune just by using that name.

Having said that, we are talking about SCO, and we know how these guys trip over
their own feet, again and again...

Linux_Inside

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very Simple
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT
BayStar is back in control of SCO (the registration did not happen, no matter
what SCO is trying to tell you). Thus, SCO will have to do what BayStar wanted
all along. They will spin off their UNIX business as "USL" and SCO
will be the lawsuit shell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Amendment 2 rears its ugly head
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 07:23 PM EDT
I think this might be the back up strategy for losing against Novell.

I'm wondering, in other words, if the good clowns at SCOG aren't trying to lay
the groundwork to demand Novell's copyrights based on the "required for the
business" clause in Amendment 2 of the APA.

"See, see, look we neeeeeeeeeeed those copyrights, 'cause we already
trademarked the name!!!"

This is almost too stupid to be believed, in so many different ways, but then
again, this is SCOG, and they apparently regard abject stupidity as a challenge
to their manhood.

First, the registration should be invalid based on everything said above about
the Open Group.

Then there's the fact that it won't work, as Novell can will argue that this has
nothing to do with the business contemplated by the APA.

Such a claim would also contradict their claims about possession of the Holy IP.
But, hey, if the motion for PSJ is about to prove that the emperor has no
clothes, the Wookie has nothing to do with this case, and SCOG possess no Holy
IP, what have they got to lose?





















[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 07:31 PM EDT
"SCO has another live trademark, by the way, SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS,
proving once again that this company has no sense of irony." PJ

Let's look at it this way: SCOG certainly grew groklaw's business (they probably
wish they hadn't).

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 07:39 PM EDT
SCOG is spoofing Old SCO, and now SCOG wants to spoof USL, too? I have never
heard a corpoation claim to be the successor interest based on registering a
pre-owned trademark, but here is SCOG's chance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

USL - BSD court ruling
Authored by: MikeA on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT
Just read (one of) the long court rulings in the USL/BSD case. I have to say it is very well written and understandable. It gave me a better insight into what legally constitutes derivative work vs copying. You can find it here.

---
Change is merely the opportunity for improvement.....
but I can't think of a better signature yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's trademark lawyers
Authored by: atul on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 08:05 PM EDT
I originally posted this over at the Yahoo board, figured it might interest people here, too.

===========================

Here's the site for Madson & Metcalf, SCO's attorneys in the trademark case (and yes, they're from Salt Lake). It's interesting how they make it very clear they don't just help people get patents & trademarks, they're also happy to litigate over them. I'm sure we'll be hearing from these people in the future.

Here's the bio for Wesley L. Austin, the lawyer assigned to the trademark application.

Here's the interesting bit: "Following law school, Wes has worked for the law firm of Parsons Behle and Latimer and as in-house intellectual property counsel for emWare, Inc."

emWare, as you may recall, was started by Chris Sontag after he left Novell (where he worked with Darl). Looks like Wesley-boy goes way back with the Novell-IKON-Canopy-SCO Mafia. Here's their PR from when they hired Mr. Austin.

Wesley-boy's also mentioned on the law firm's page about their work on *foreign* patent and trademark law:

I wonder if there's any way to look for additional patent and trademark applications outside the US?

Here Mr. Austin was involved in some sort of anti-spyware product.

He's written a number of law journal articles. Here he's referenced in an article about open source vs. software patents, though I'm not sure yet what his position was/is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I suspect we're all off the mark
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT
Recent history indicates that TSCOG has no intentions of doing any actual Unix
business, so this trademark has no real business purpose.

Rather, what TSCOG has been doing a lot of is trying to create delays in their
suicidal litigation. Complicating all the contract and copyright BS by throwing
in a few bogus trademark claims would do just that.

They don't care if its blatently obvious they're not who they claim, all they
care about is does it throw enough of a wrench in the works that they can milk
it for a few more months of "dispute of material fact".

Expect to see this somehow appear in a few overlength motions soon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX trademark, can anyone find another one besides this:
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 09:23 PM EDT
This is all I found at the USPTO, although I may not be searching properly:

Word Mark UNIX
Goods and Services IC 009. US 038. G & S: COMPUTER PROGRAMS. FIRST USE:
19721214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19721214
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 73544900
Filing Date June 24, 1985
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition October 29, 1985
Registration Number 1392203
Registration Date May 6, 1986
Owner (REGISTRANT) AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK
550 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022
(LAST LISTED OWNER) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF
DELAWARE 295 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE BASKING RIDGE NEW JERSEY 07920

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record FRANK L. POLITANO
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

It appears that it hasn't been abandoned and is still owned by USL. I thought
the trademark for UNIX was transferred to the Open Group? Did both Novell and
they not update the registration to indicate a change in ownership?

-pooky

---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT
Here's the entire "Trademark Assignment Abstract of Title" for the mark "UNIX".

See: http:// assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=73537419

Highlights: < p>

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST AND THE GOODWILL
  • Assignor: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
  • Assignee: UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC.
  • Exec Dt: 05/15/1990

  • Conveyance: MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS.)
  • Assignor: UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC.
  • Assignee: NOVELL, INC.
  • Exec Dt: 04/29/1994

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST
  • Assignor: NOVELL, INC.
  • Assignee: X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED
  • Exec Dt: 11/13/1998

I'm a little curious about that last date...

Lessee what else we can find.

t_t_b

---
APA analysis, SCO Unix "timeline" and more, see:
http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/index.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 09:58 PM EDT
OK, folks, check this out:

http:// assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=74068206

"Trademark Assignment Abstract of Title"

    Registrant: UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC.
    Mark: UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES
    Assignment: 1
    Reel/Frame: 1920/0794
    Received: 06/30/1999
    Recorded: 06/22/1999
    Pages: 4
    Conveyance: ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST
    Assignor: NOVELL, INC.
    Exec Dt: 11/13/1998
    Entity Type: CORPORATION
    Assignee: X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED
    APEX PLAZA
    FORBURY ROAD
    READING, BERKSHIRE, ENGLAND RG1 1AX

Does this do what I think it does?

What am I missing here?

Can TSCOG do *anything* right?

t_t_b

---
APA analysis, SCO Unix "timeline" and more, see:
http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/index.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO WHY....WHY....WHY...?!?!
Authored by: brian on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:38 PM EDT
The more I watch the SCO show the more I am left asking
the biggest questions....WHY?!?!

Why lay claim to ancient Unix they don't own?

Why lay claim to Linux they don't own?

Why lay claim to ELF standards they don't own?

Why lay claim to copyrights they don't own?

Why obfuscate their company origins?

Why lay claim to trademarks they don't own?

And a whole host of other whys...

All of this has to lead somewhere or do something I just
can't figure out why! What do they hope to achieve with
this latest tactic? The only thing I come up with is a
desire to confuse any jury they get anything in front of.
Let's face it, the typical juror has the IQ of a carrot
and the attention span of a gnat on the cases they sit.
This is because of the way juries are picked. Anyone with
prior knowledge of any of these topics is excluded. So I
suspect if this case goes to jury we can really see the
claims of "we own all this and they wronged us!" with the
jury swallowing it hook, line, sinker, and pole.

P.S. Those are all retorical questions as they have all
been shot down here before. I was just wondering where SCO
plans to take all this BS when they do get it to trial.

B.

---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif

[ Reply to This | # ]

$40,000 trades on SCOX ... interesting number
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:39 PM EDT
If you look at the volume bar for SCOX on a site like Yahoo Finance, you'll note
that there are a lot of 10,000 share transactions @ roughly a $4 share price.

$40,000 is also coincidentally about the same amount of money a couple can gift
another couple without hitting gift taxes.

I'm curious who is sinking money into SCOX and where that money is coming from.

We need a fully public stock market system where all transactions are publically
documented in full. The cost of transaction privacy in the stock markets is
having to trust the government to catch the thief.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Is Trolling -- Jokes on Us!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:44 PM EDT

Confuse, Confound and Obfuscate.....

The registration of a trademark/tradename does not create a "successor in
interest" in any contractual sense.

This is pure PR designed to confuse, confound, and obfuscate. More of the same
from our favorites......

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look at SCO's site - Maybe it's because they want to claim various UNIX functions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:44 PM EDT
Look at SCO's site - Maybe it's because they want to claim various UNIX functions

ustat, poll, mount, acct. mknod, stime, etc

Try this google search - if link doesn't work: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=site%3A sco.com+%22unix+system+laboratories%22

Look at about item 6 onwards on this page and subsequent pages, there are lots of pages found (pages and pages).

Each page contains the following quotation:

"Standards conformance. ustat is not part of any currently supported standard; it was developed by UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. and is used by permission"


Therefore they may say these items were not released into a standard, and any Linux implementation infringes their/USL rights.

Yes I realize registering a new trademark similar to an abandoned one, does not transfer any copyrights (not to mention whether the functional definition is copyrightable at all).... but this is SCO

In SCOworld, changing your name to "SCO Group, Inc." apparently makes you a party to non-assignable agreements signed by "Santa Cruz Operation, Inc." e.g. Monterey, APA, etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Simple Logic Cannot Explain TSG's Attempt To Register USL
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:06 AM EDT
This is the way a bully picks on the Open Group. Remember, there is
a lot going on that does not get reported on Groklaw (well, at least not
right away. Hehe!).

McBride likes to spread the pain and he is feeling a lot of pain now. So,
acting out is natural for McBride and his mob.

Will Open Group sue? Can TSG ruin the Open Group financially? Will this
confuse a jury? Will this confuse a Linux user enough to pay protection?
How low can TSG go before they are stopped? Will this generate another
round of stupid Press tricks? Can McBride get some attention?

The best thing for the community would be for TSG to shape up or go out
of business. Which are you betting on?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic re: M$ patent lawsuit...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 12:50 AM EDT
ComputerWorld has an article about M$ getting sued over alleged patent infringement for Windows (and Office) Update. Here's the summary and the link... Microsoft, Apple Sued For Offering Online Updates The lawsuit charges Microsoft and Apple with infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,557,054, alleging that their operating systems, as well as Microsoft Office products, incorporate patented technologies. http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,94654,00.html? nlid=WK I know it won't result in much, but it's fun seeing them get a little taste anyway. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO *has* violated OpenGroup's Trademark License
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 01:05 AM EDT
It looks to me like SCO has already violated the OpenGroup's Trademark license simply by trying to register this trademark.

(1) The SCO Group is a member of the Open Group, see:

http://www.opengroup.org/overview/members/membership_list.htm

(2) Go here: http://www.opengroup.org/legal.htm#A Quick Guide http://www.opengroup.org/legal.htm#A Quick Guide

Download the Trademark Usage Guide, and go to pp 47

Note the following

4.1 Combination of Trademarks in Product Names

...

Licensees may combine the UNIX Trademark with their own trademarks as a product name, provided they seek prior approval by submitting the proposed combination including a sketch of the proposed use. If approporate, to X/Open Company. X/Open Company may ask to review a proof of the final artwork.

Licensees may use the UNIX Trademark as part of the proper name of a product.

...

The License specifically prohibits Licensees of any Trademarks from registering with the relevant trademark authorities specific forms of the Trademarks including Trademarks used in combination.



Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slow Novell site
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT
Mozilla says:

"A script on this page is causing Mozilla to run slowly. If it continues to
run, your computer may become unresponsive.

Do you want to abort the script?"

Nice programming...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 03:24 AM EDT
What about Open Windows Laboratories Foundation?

I find that the ulimate name to register for triggering
lawsuits.

Jan Christian Anker

[ Reply to This | # ]

Situation od "Unix" trademark in Europe
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 04:22 AM EDT

http://www.oami.eu.int/en/database/ctm-online.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Clickable link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:20 AM EDT
The next Darl interview
Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 04:35 AM EDT
Maybe the next Darl interview will go something like this:

Reporter: A lot of people are saying you don't own the copyrights.

Darl: None of the court cases are based on challenging SCO's UNIX copyrights;
SCO owns the Unix System Labaratories Intellectual Property and nobody has
questioned or challenged that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

they're trying to get sued
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 05:19 AM EDT
SCOG would dearly love to associate themselves with the USL name but don't have
any way to initiate legal action to obtain the name.

So maybe they're trying to get someone else to start an action, one that they
will defend by claiming they are sucessors in interest to USL and they're hope
is to obtain clear ownership by the back door?

Even if such a case goes nowhere they will have months to misrepresent it. If
they get really lucky they might even find a way to delay all tbe other cases
waiting for a decision on ownership of USL?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible connection between Mr. Gray and SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:37 AM EDT
Check out this page; http://www.greenborder.com/about/management.html
I don't know if this Wayne Gray is the same person but one of the other
management staff (Joanne Syben) at this company used to be a senior manager at
Caldera, she also held a management position at SCO apparently, don't know if
they mean OldSCO or FakeSCO though.
Could somebody check if this is the same person?

regards,
Martijn (who just can't seem to get his password mail for account
"mwvdlee")

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: sirdev-galactica on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 07:08 AM EDT
I've been a fan of Groklaw since its beginnings and this is my first time
posting. Great work PJ and the gang!!!!!

Regarding this story, I believe SCO might be trying to spin off their UNIX
division and "appear" to comply with Baystar's wishes that SCO drop
UNIX and persue litigation. Does this sound too far-reaching?

sirdev-galactica

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents in Europe: what's going on?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT
would anybody be so kind to give me a status report on the fight against patents
in Europe. Yes I know about the FFI website, but I find it messy and unclear and
hard to find stuff. I just want to know about the latest and/or coming events.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daimler / Chrysler BEWARE !
Authored by: AntiFUD on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 08:52 AM EDT
I can't find, searching the USPTO, any Trademarks or Assignments thereof
relating to Chrysler Corporation or Chrysler Motors Corporation - is it possible
that SCOG could be planning an attack?

---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cautionary Tale: McDonalds
Authored by: AllParadox on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT
They filed this, they filed that, what does it mean? Applying logic, we argue
...

It is sort of amazing that Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents are even
collected together in the same place, because they are so different. Little
example: there is a special Bar for Patent Attorneys, but anybody with a license
can practice Tradmark law. I have.

Most Americans have never eaten at McDonalds. Seriously! I haven't, and won't.
Originally, McDonalds was a pair of fast food joints in Southern California. A
fellow named Ray Kroc visited them one time, and decided that he loved the idea.
He went back to Illinois and copied the concept, including the name and
possibly even the arches. Then he franchised it all over the country. Ray had
his own idiosyncracies. Dirty franchises got the axe. Eventually, franchisees
were all over SoCal.

The Original McDonalds finally woke up to a good thing, and tried to open
another facility. Kroc's McDonalds stopped them cold, in court. It wasn't the
registrations, it was the use. Effectively, Ray's organization took away the
name, by using it, and the court said so.

How this will all play out as between the Open Source Group and TSG is anybody's
guess. All the contracts and filings are mere indicators and are not
necessarily controlling. Unless you think you have eaten at the Original
McDonalds lately.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 04:21 PM EDT
(-: They use that trademark when trying to sell into the Lawyer market. :-)

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Registers Trademark (Intent to Use) for "UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 06:28 PM EDT
So, could they use this to be able to say that any lines of code that say
"UNIX system labs" or "USL" are "Infringing on their
trademark" ? Or something of the like?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )