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's 10K & a SCOsource TM Application
Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:31 PM EST

SCO has just applied to register the word mark SCOSOURCE in the category of Goods and Services, "Licensing services, namely, the services of licensing intellectual property." They claim first use was January of 2003 but failed to list a particular date. Considering the purpose of a trademark, I find this effort comical, unless they want it just to sue someone who is using it in a way they don't like. Would anyone else wish to use that mark for "licensing intellectual property"?

I can still name my new toilet bowl cleaner SCOsource, but in the category of licensing IP, SCO has a lock, if this is accepted for registration, which I'm sure it will be.

You'll have to go to www.uspto.gov, click on Tradmarks, Search, Basic form, and use keyword SCOSOURCE if you wish to see it, because the USPTO's website software is demented and won't let you reliably point to search results directly. It also times out if you take too long reading. I am sure that helps the whole patent and trademark legal mess. Not. Here's the page, if it still works.

The purpose of a trademark, after all, is to make sure that your products are clearly from you and no one else. You can read about Trademarks if you go to our Legal Links page and look for the link. You want to know that if you buy a Coke, It's the Real Thing. But you don't actually need to register a trademark to have one or to sue over one. It's useful to establish that you have it and when you legally got it, but registration is not required. Using a mark in business and building up a reputation is also a way to get a trademark, and I believe their SCOsource reputation is carved in stone for all the ages, and it is pointedly all about SCO.

That's the mark they really should apply for: IT'S ALL ABOUT SCO.

Is there anyone who would want its products to bear a SCOsource mark? Only if they hate their own product and want it to die on the vine, I think. The mark eternally stands for SCO's attempt to say stick 'em up to Linux users and vendors, and, as they point out themselves in their most recent 10K, which is gloomily written in such a way it seems they are trying to buttress their damages claims regarding Novell, SCOsource hasn't been a success to date. That's putting it mildly.

I know. It must mean SCO has visions of future glory.

By the way, the fantastical prices SCO invented to make them "whole" from the allegedly infringing code in Linux can be viewed in the trademark application, number 78794781 if you click on TDR, and then "Specimen".

We may not agree with SCO about the reason SCOsource is deathly ill -- they think it's because Novell and others have said things that "confuse" people about SCO's rights, and I think it's because they haven't established that there is, in reality, any infringing UNIX code in Linux. Well, that and the fact that folks tend not to trust SCO now, from my observation. Who wants to do business with a company which sues its own customers, like Daimler Chrysler, for heaven's sake, who hadn't used UNIX is almost a decade?

When SCO did that, I think a lot of people felt they'd sue anyone under any pretext, so long as there were deep pockets in the picture or some FUD to be had. After all, you could be next, no, if you end up on their radar? DaimlerChrysler had been a UNIX licensee in the distant past, a customer of SCO's alleged predecessors-in-interest, and once SCO started suing customers like that, they pretty much slammed the door on new business, and they had to know it. No one wants to be sued. Most normal people don't even like to sue others, let alone be sued themselves. It's worth crossing the street to avoid litigation, and that is precisely what the world pretty much did en masse, cross the street to get away from SCO. Linux didn't do that to SCO, and neither did Novell or the Linux community or anybody but SCO. They did it to themselves. They deliberately chose to make their name mud in the marketplace, in my opinion, and now they are reaping what they deliberately sowed.

Here's how the 10K tries to point the finger at Novell:

We believe and allege that our decrease in SCOsource revenue for the years ended October 31, 2005 and 2004 was in part attributable to Novellís claim of UNIX copyright ownership, which may have caused potential customers to delay or forego licensing until an outcome in this legal matter has been reached....

Believe and allege, eh? That's not SEC language, to my mind. Sounds like they are already writing something up for the court. SCO will have to bite the bullet, look in the mirror and accept a simple truth, that most people don't like what SCO is doing. As a result, their business is tanking at the moment, and that tanking is what SCO tells us about in their 10K. It isn't just SCOsource that is heading downward like a dying bird, however. It's pretty much everything, including the number of SCO employees. So much suffering from this litigation, so many jobs lost. As their 10K says, "Revenue from our UNIX business decreased by $6,142,000, or 15%, for the year ended October 31, 2005 compared to the year ended October 31, 2004 and decreased by $11,428,000, or 21%, for the year ended October 31, 2004 compared to the year ended October 31, 2003." Novell didn't do that to them. They say Linux did, by competing in the marketplace.

Well, no one sues you if you use Linux.

Duh.

Might that be the simple explanation?


  


SCO's 10K & a SCOsource TM Application | 54 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: Trollsfire on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:41 PM EST

If you have any corrections, please note them here.

--Trollsfire

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 10K & a SCOsource TM Application
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:42 PM EST
"which may have caused potential customers to delay or forego licensing
until an outcome in"

Well the company for which I'm the IT Director would fit the description of
'potential customer' but I can assure them, and any potential
suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H investors, that Novell had nothing to do with it.

I can also clearly say it was due to the fact that this appears to pure
extortion. Simple as that.

When SCO identifies what they claim to own and can show they own it then maybe
we'll talk to them but it's more likely we'd just move to some other product, if
it came to that, than ever deal with such a disreputable company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

toilet bowl cleaner?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:45 PM EST
I think the name "scosource" would more properly be applied to that
which is being cleaned from the bowl. ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here please
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:45 PM EST

Post in HTML, and put in those links; intructions at the end of the posting page. If you cannot, then post it anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow, even I could do their "drawing" entry on the USPTO TDR page
Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:53 PM EST
1) Just open up your favorite word processor.
2) Choose your font to be Times New Roman.
3) Change the size to 72.
4) Type in the trademark's name.

Compare this to SCO's version. Just bring up the trademark page, click on the
TDR button, then click on the link for "drawing".

Pretty close, eh?

Is this kind of thing normal? Granted, it's nothing like their
"Specimens" entry. Maybe it's too soon to switch careers to making
trademark drawings...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another gem in SCO's 10K
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 03:57 PM EST

As of January 20, 2006, there were 394 holders of common stock of record.

Wow...

[ Reply to This | # ]

They just want to shut down...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 04:27 PM EST
http://www.scosource.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 10K & a SCOsource TM Application
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:12 PM EST
So who's first to trademark SCOsAuce?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 10K & a SCOsource TM Application
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:38 PM EST
>
We believe and allege that our decrease in SCOsource revenue for the years
ended October 31, 2005 and 2004 was in part attributable to Novellís claim of
UNIX copyright ownership, which may have caused potential customers to delay or
forego licensing until an outcome in this legal matter has been reached....
<

Sorry to dissilusion the creators of this report but that would have nothing to
do with it. I would not touch a company like TSCOG with a barge pole.

1/ Long time between upgrades
2/ Lack of support staff
3/ No clear fuure development path
4/ No certainty of future existance
5/ Dubious busines statergy
6/ Sues customers
7/ Declarers contracts are to sue with

Sorry, but that is not a company I would want to use.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

We believe and allege...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:45 PM EST
What a story. Do you remember Dear Linux User? Did you reply? Did you get an answer? I certainly didn't (unless you count being put on a Spanish spam list).

You call it economical with the truth, we would call it a terminological inexactitude, what does the SEC call it?

Alan(UK)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 10K in pictures
Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 06:53 PM EST
Headcount erosion by division

Revenue decline by region

Revenue decline by Product

Draw your own conclusions

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 10K-- Notes from the filing.
Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 07:04 PM EST
How about these forward looking statements for this coming year:
"Our belief that our OpenServer and UnixWare products will continue to provide a revenue stream in the year ending October 31, 2006 and our belief that revenue from such products will continue to decline;"

"Our expectation that total UNIX revenue for the year ending October 31, 2006 will decline from UNIX revenue generated during the year ended October 31, 2005;"

Kevin McBride's hourly rate is paid by Boies out of the retainer, so direct legal reimbursement is unknown. However, SCO pays the "expenses" and these totaled $323,000 in FY 2005.

The $8.50/share option granted M. Anderer in 2003 has expired unexercised in FY2005, and its Black Sholes value of $243K recorded as Paid-in Capital.

The recission offer ended 1/20/06 and 7,300 shares were surrendered for $41.5K

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps this is why
Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 08:19 PM EST
I saw this article in the Groklaw news sidebar:

Feb. 3 - Trademark bill would limit speech of artists, small business owners, others

It seem that this legislation would give trademark owners much broader rights to prosecute
unauthorized use of trademarks, perhaps even to the point where criticizing a product by
name could be prosecuted.

I'd guess that SCO finds the idea of suing their critics to be quite appealing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOsource TM has potential future value.
Authored by: hardcode57 on Friday, February 03 2006 @ 10:53 PM EST
I think they are looking to the future, when they are holding a fire sale to pay
for execs legal bills. Someone will pay a few $ on e-bay for ownership of this
TM as a collectable. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

bowl cleaner
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 06:48 AM EST
No, i don't think you can normally get away with that.
If you can, then there is some flaw in the law system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naming new toilet...
Authored by: rezende on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 10:08 AM EST
I can still name my new toilet bowl cleaner SCOsource
Sorry, but I can't resist the opportunity:

Maybe it would be more appropriate, brandwise, to rather name our new toilet PAPER "SCOsource".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too much toilet humour
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 12:19 PM EST
From the 10K:

"As a result of the SCO Litigation, participants in the Linux marketplace
and others affiliated with IBM or sympathetic to the Linux movement have taken
actions attempting to negatively affect our business and our SCOsource
efforts."

Stop it! Stop it at once! These associations of SCOsource with a toilet brush
are just too much! No fair!

"Linux proponents have taken a broad range of actions against us,
including, for example, attempting to influence participants in the markets in
which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and
services they purchase from us."

For instance, just take a look at www.scosource.com - what a dastardly trick!

"We expect that similar efforts likely will continue."

You betcha. We haven't larfed so much in yonks.

"There is a risk that additional participants in our marketplace will
negatively view the SCO Litigation, and we may lose support from such
participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the
marketplace, our results of operations and our stock price and our ability to
stay in business."

Gee, who'd have thought it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time-outs when searching.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 04 2006 @ 01:23 PM EST
Hi PJ, when I read this:
You'll have to go to www.uspto.gov, click on Tradmarks, Search, Basic form, and use keyword SCOSOURCE if you wish to see it, because the USPTO's website software is demented and won't let you reliably point to search results directly. It also times out if you take too long reading. I am sure that helps the whole patent and trademark legal mess. Not. Here's the page, if it still works.

I couldn't help but note that your own page times out with an error message, too. I sometimes only give a timeframe as search parameter. This results in time-outs, too. This is probably caused by the many comments the search engine will search through. Some testing could result in catching it off, by setting a limit and placing a clean error message.

Best regards,
Sam

[ Reply to This | # ]

www.scosource.com
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 06 2006 @ 03:04 AM EST

Maybe they wanted it to be January 2003, as the site www.scosource.com was registered in May of that year.

Some, SCO?, might argue that the website is giving away a service of humour, which SCO is capable of doing all by themselves.

Martijn

[ 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 )