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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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 Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Friday, July 30 2004 @ 12:02 AM EDT

Robert McMillan has the scoop on our scoop, that SCO has confirmed their attempt to trademark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, which Groklaw's Rand McNatt first discovered. And the Open Group has a reaction too. They will oppose it. First, here's the purpose, according to Blake Stowell:

"'The company has filed to receive that trademark because we believe there's some value in that. How we plan to use that trademark in the future has yet to be determined,' said Blake Stowell, an SCO spokesman.

"If registered, the name could be used for a variety of purposes, Stowell said. 'It could be used for our company; it could be used for an initiative within our company; it could be used in any number of areas,' he said."

"Has yet to be determined."

Right.

They say they'll tell us at SCOForum next week. I guess by then they'll have it determined. So that was the big announcement they promised? Too bad for SCO there is a Groklaw. The PR impact will be a tad diminished by the news that the Open Group intends to fight this trademark. Altogether too many eyeballs.

The Open Group points out that they own the trademark to UNIX, so registering a trademark on UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES would conflict with their rights and it would also, they say, violate their license with SCO, and that license is what permits SCO to use the term UNIX. They plan to object:

"'We'll be taking the issue up with the Patent and Trademark Office and objecting strenuously, and we'll be taking the issue up with SCO because it's a breach of the license they already hold with us,' said Graham Bird, vice president of marketing with the Open Group."

So, the high priests of the Most Holy IP war have violated a sacred license?

Another Groklaw reader, Quatermass, pointed out that you can read the license (click on the Trademark Usage Guide link, a PDF, and go to page 8) for yourself, and note what appears to be a conflict, which I have marked in red:

"4. Other Conditions for Use of Trademarks

"4.1 Combination of Trademarks in Product Names

"Despite the need to protect and preserve the rights associated with its Trademarks, X/Open Company recognizes the value to Licensees of associating the UNIX Trademark with their own marks 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 appropriate, 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.

"In making its decision, X/Open Company will take into account the following factors:

• The relative positioning of each trademark or name; having particular regard to their being no real or implied adverse connotations for either X/Open Company or UNIX and what X/Open Company, The Open Group, and the UNIX system stand for in the marketplace.
• The graphic including typographic design should ensure that the UNIX Trademark has at least equal prominence in any name combination and that there is no likelihood of confusion or compromise for the UNIX Trademark.
• ProductMark UNIX is ABC Company’s UNIX system product.

"The Trademarks 'X/Open' or 'The Open Group' may not be used in a product name.

"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."

Some days, it's a plum pleasin' pleasure writing Groklaw. And thank you, Rand, for noticing what was going on in the dark and letting Groklaw direct the spotlight on it. It has indubitably made a difference.


  


SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It | 183 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT here, please
Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 12:55 AM EDT
Thanks in advance.

---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Links go here
Authored by: corran__horn on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:00 AM EDT


---
#INCLUDE IANAL.h

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typo in McMillan's article
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:03 AM EDT
I'm pretty sure that this
Unix System Laboratories was once a subsidiary of AT&T that owned both the Unix trademark and the Unix System V source code. The company was dissolved when it was acquired by Novell Inc. in 1993. Novell eventually sold some of the Unix System Laboratories assets, which were acquired by The SCO Group in 2000. As part of its Unix divestiture, Novell transferred the Unix copyright to the Open Group.

Is supposed to say
Unix System Laboratories was once a subsidiary of AT&T that owned both the Unix trademark and the Unix System V source code. The company was dissolved when it was acquired by Novell Inc. in 1993. Novell eventually sold some of the Unix System Laboratories assets, which were acquired by The SCO Group in 2000. As part of its Unix divestiture, Novell transferred the Unix Trademark to the Open Group.

If McMillan is reading (or somebody knows how to tell him), he might want to correct it

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: Glenn on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:06 AM EDT
Maybe they need to go with United Systems Laboratories after all. But Useless
Systems Laboratories is more apt.

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Would Be Funny
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:07 AM EDT
The company that claims to virtually everything connected with unix would even
be allowed to use the word! I guess they'd have to say they own "Bob"
or some other name if they lose their Open Group license.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They want to be USL
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:08 AM EDT
"It could be used for our company" - Stowell

See, all those USL, Inc. copyrighted stuff now belong to SCO! (In SCO world)

P.S.
If I change my name to Stephen King, could I start getting royalties on his
novels?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Open Group huffs and puffs but is short on lung capacity
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:19 AM EDT
Sadly, I have my doubts that The Open Group can get in SCO's way. They have had cause long ago to take SCO to task, and they never did. SCO has sized up The Open Group and probably concluded that the only thing blowing their way is bad breath :-) Hopefully now, finally, The Open Group will be forced to translate their words into action.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh, The Possibilities!
Authored by: Simon G Best on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:25 AM EDT

After all The SCO Group's various shenanigans, it's easy to imagine all sorts of possible uses/abuses for that trademark. Perhaps "has yet to be determined" means that they haven't yet decided which ones to pursue? Or in which order?

There are the obvious shell game possibilities, involving various combinations and permutations of such things as: setting up a new part of their business; spinning off part of their business as a subsidiary; selling part of their business, under that name, to, say, Canopy; renaming The SCO Group; selling that trademark to another business, which they then purchase; and so on.

Perhaps they know they'll ultimately get nowhere with it, but they intend to use that journey from here to nowhere in order to further delay things in the various courts, and so on. It would not be at all surprising for them to try to find ways of using this to try to boost their ailing litigation shell game.

Perhaps they'll go for a grand combination of shell games, and will try to play a super shell game of shell games?

Or perhaps they're deliberately, desperately provoking The Open Group in the hope that it will be a wookiee to destract us from what's going on elsewhere? Perhaps this is some sort of attempt to overwhelm Groklaw?

Or maybe they've just come to realise that the name 'The SCO Group' is now well-and-truly mud, and they want a new, clean, untainted identity.

I've also wondered if it might be part of some attempt to appease BayStar. If they were to put what remains of their software business stuff in a subsidiary named Unix System Laboratories, then The SCO Group could concentrate more fully on protecting its claimed IP. They could even sell that subsidiary to, say, Canopy. Or try to follow Novell's example, and sell it as a software licensing and distribution business, where they would supposedly retain the IP they claim to have.

Or, perhaps, they're planning to abandon The SCO Group, but first of all want to transfer their claimed IP to a safe, new company with the name 'Unix System Laboratories'? I'm wondering if they might have realised that The SCO Group is well-and-truly a lost cause that's doomed to be utterly destroyed in the courts, and are trying to slip the pea from under that shell to a new one. Wouldn't it be interesting if that new company just happens to appoint Darl McBride, et al, to run it?

Too many possibilities, but, as you say, there are just too many eyeballs on this already.

---
Open and Honest - Open Source

[ Reply to This | # ]

Errors please here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 02:07 AM EDT

So PJ cana find them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • More red - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT
Its an attack on the APA
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 02:19 AM EDT
If you follow the Open Group vs INUX trademark case, you will see that INUX
claims the APA makes it clear the trademark UNIX transferred to SCO. Open Group
claims they had a contract with Novell prior to the SCO APA, but the
registration date for UNIX with Open Group is after the APA. Not to be a troll,
but reading the APA (and amendment 2) by itself, without reference to any other
possible contracts, seems to support this fact.

What this will do is make the Open Group also pitch in "against" the
Novell-SCO APA, a happy event for TSOG.

RG

[ Reply to This | # ]

OldSCO-NewSCO; OldUSL-NewUSL
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 02:24 AM EDT
It is clearly another attempt to try to subvert the truth from an old playbook
that everyone now knows. Why do you think they think that it would work? I
can, again, clearly see Darl's mischievous hand. I believe that he thinks he is
smarter than almost anyone you can name. He clearly is not, he can't even come
up with an original tact. Come on Darl, you are not half as smart as the
average Groklaw reader; and certainly not as smart as any ten or 100 of us. Oh,
and BTW, I'm looking forward to Sept when you get your hat handed to you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM, NOVELL, RED HAT Take NOTE
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 03:24 AM EDT
This is another clear-cut case of creating FUD in the marketplace; this time by
confusing the heritage of UNIX by taking the name of a company,UNIX System
Laboratories (USL) which became a company - majority-owned by AT&T in 1991.

FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

You can't get more 'Uncertainty' than by owning the name/Trademark of a previous
owner of the rights to UNIX, except perhaps by taking the name of AT&T, or
Dennis Ritchie or Ken Thompson.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Conflict - I don't think so.
Authored by: dorward on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 04:45 AM EDT
I've been looking at the two highlighted sections, and don't believe they
conflict with each other (if that is what the article is claiming).

The first one says that you may seek permission to combine your trademark with
the UNIX trademark as a product name.

The second says you may not register a trademark which is your trademark
combined with UNIX.

So, having recieved permission, SCO could release a product called SCO UNIX
(first section). However, they could not registered SCO UNIX as a trademark
(second section).

Or am I way off base here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sometimes (well almost once) you have to feel sorry for SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 06:01 AM EDT
SCO seems to have such low self-esteem, such uncertainty about their own
identity, that they have to make believe that they are really some other more
prestigious company. They have to give them themselves fancy titles, dress up
and act important - like those fake princes who turn up in Hollywood every now
and then. If they can convince everyone of their new identity, then no one will
suspect them for the losers they really are.

First they are Caldera ... no, they are SCO, celebrating their 25th anniversary
..no, wait a minute, they are really USL!

Give them a few more months and they will probably be registering themselves as
the Bell Telephone Company.

A company that has to impersonate other companies like that is deeply, deeply
dishonest.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 06:20 AM EDT
It's way too late for these guys to cut and run but this is pathetic.
"When you're in a hole stop digging!!".

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Unfortunately - from a general ethical point of view, that is, SCOG's attempt to
register the USL trademark and thus steal the Open Group's UNIX trademark is
consistent with their attempt to steal the IP of the contributors to Linux. The
attempt to register the USL trademark is also consistent with their pose as
"the owner of the UNIX operating system" - a pose which the Open Group
has not appeared to have opposed with the aggressivity they should have
displayed, and this lack of aggressivity may very well count against the Open
Group in a court of law. My message to the Open Group is: get off your butts,
and clean up your(insert the expletives of your choice) act !!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tinfoil anyone?
Authored by: TeeJay on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:07 AM EDT
Step 1. TSCOG trademarks Unix System Laboratories
Step 2. The Open Group objects and files suit for innapropriate use of
Trademark.
Step 3. SCO prevented from using the term UNIX.
Step 4. Delay in court/exit plan?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Must be a spoof press release
Authored by: Stoneshop on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:08 AM EDT
"because we believe there's some value in that.". Natch.

If this had been a real statement by the real Blake Stowell, it would have read
"strongly believe" and "great value" or "tremendous
value".


---
Rik
IANALJLMOY


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 08:42 AM EDT
Looks like SCO is going to need to pick another name to try and hide their
stinky product line. Maybe something like Claria. Oh, wait, that one's already
taken.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: jerm on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT
I've said this once, and I'll say it again. . .

SCO is going to try to re-open the BSD v USL lawsuit and try really hard to make
themselves look like USL. They said early on when all this litigation was
starting that they were thinking of re-opening the lawsuit. Ray Noorda was a
party to the sealed settlement, and they think this gives them some edge.

That said, I don't think that they think they can win. But, it's more FOSS FUD.
They may be fishing for another reason for MS to set them up with more venture
capital. Or, they may be hoping for some stock bounce because of an actual
lawsuit or because people will believe that one will be filed.

jerm

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: Anon Ymonus on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 09:27 AM EDT
Ahhh... A welcome bit of news indeed, on SysAdmin Appreciation Day... :D

It has been a while since news gave me the Warm Fuzzies...

---
---
Anon Ymonus
"Who can it be now?" -- Men at Work

[ Reply to This | # ]

Highlighted Red
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 09:42 AM EDT
PJ,

I don't see a conflict in those areas of red. My quick analysis indicates that
you could take the two trademarked items to make a product name, such as SCO(r)
UNIX(r), but you can't trademark "SCO UNIX" as a whole, independent
trademark.

I.E. SCO's product could be called SCO UNIX, but SCO can't trademark the entire
phrase as a whole. Since they have the trademark on SCO, and the Unix people
have the trademark on UNIX, nobody else can use this particular combination for
their product.

Am I making sense, or am I just totally off base?

Sincerely,
Brian Lusk

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 10:08 AM EDT
...and our scheme would have work too, except for those meddling kids.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question to Darl: Why not short cut the whole process?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
Caldera wanted to be Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. so they change their name to The
SCO Group, Inc. and call themselves "SCO"

Now Caldera wants to be UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC., so they want to change
their name to some variant of that.

THe underlying objective however of all this, remains the same: to get your
grubby paws on IBM's money.

So, Darl, why not just change your name to some variant of IBM, and pretend to
be them? It'd save a lot of time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I Be Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 12:37 PM EDT
Just another trick on the part of SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:33 PM EDT

... to scare people into giving them money instead of fighting their threats.

I finally got around to reading that article in the latest issue of Wired about Darl and Anderer. Made the mistake of reading it over lunch and I almost lost same. What a couple of con artists.

It's doubtful that they have the rights to the USL trademarks -- given the license they have from TOG over the use of UNIX -- but they hope to threaten people who might be using any source code that says USL in it somewhere. It sounds like the old Darl-n-Anderer trick to rake in a pile of money from people who would be all to eager to settle than spend the money proving they are right in the courts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Confirms Trademark Filing - The Open Group Will Oppose It
Authored by: pfusco on Monday, August 02 2004 @ 02:44 PM EDT
This may be just a silly idea but I think SCO will soon be changing their name again to guess what? UNIX SYSTEM LABRATORIES.

I mean really, how the heck else are they going to save what may be left of their dying buiness and reputations?

Any bets?

---
only the soul matters in the end

[ 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 )