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
A Trademark Tale
Friday, February 17 2006 @ 06:14 AM EST

Now that Intel has told the court in Utah that SCO said some things that were in Intel's opinion unfair and untrue, it might be the right time to tell you about their trademark efforts, where we find SCO again telling only some of the story, to put it politely.

Do you remember back in June of 2004 when SCO applied for the trademark on the mark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES? It was rejected and it gave us all a good laugh at the time. Well, the story doesn't end there.

In August of 2005, SCO sent a letter to the USPTO, in which SCO pleaded its case after that first notice of denial. SCO's reasoning as to why it deserves the trademark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES is a sketch, as my dear grandmother used to say.

Groklaw member cfs sent me a copy of the letter, and here it is in 4 PDFs, one per page:

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

You'll see on page 4 that SCO claims that USL "is now part of" SCO and that is why SCO deserves the trademark. Say, what?

In its letter pleading its case for publication, SCO walks the USPTO through the history of ownership of USL, their version of it, through all the hops, but notice how their language changes at the last hop, from page 4:

Because UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES is now part of the Applicant, this trademark should be sent on to publication. In 1992, Novell purchased UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES and all of the UNIX assets, including all trademarks owned by UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. In 1995, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. purchased all of the UNIX assets from Novell. As part of the transaction, Novell assigned the UNIX and UNIXWARE trademarks to The Santa Cruz Operation. In 2001, The Santa Cruz Operation completed the sale of, inter alia, the UNIXWARE technologies to Caldera Systems, Inc. Caldera subsequently changed its name to The SCO Group. Because of this, the mark should be allowed to go on to publication.

Breathtaking, isn't it? But did you notice the missing word "trademark" in the last hop? cfs gets credit for noticing the odd wording. But you just can't beat SCO for running, jumping or standing gall. Unix System Laboratories "is now part of the Applicant."

The USPTO denied the application, which you can see in their letter of final denial [PDF] dated September 12, 2005:

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s). 1390593, 1392203, and 2241666. In addition, the following requirement(s) is now made FINAL: (1) an acceptable identification of goods and recitation of services and classification of goods and services. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

The USPTO letter is telling SCO its claims don't match the USPTO's records. They don't match reality as I know it, either. The first two registration numbers the USPTO cites are for the mark UNIX, and their records show them as having been transferred to X/Open. The last number, 2241666 is the registration number for serial number 74433508, for the mark UNIXWARE, and it shows it registered to Santa Cruz. But notice the date on the last line. It reads: "Cancellation date: February 4, 2006."

I told you there is more to this story. It's a complex, winding tale, so hang on while I take you through all the details of what I've found. Let's take a look at the hops in SCO's version of history, just to have some organization to the details.

1. SCO wrote, "In 1992, Novell purchased UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES and all of the UNIX assets, including all trademarks owned by UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES." SCO's application serial number is 78438912, by the way. Unfortunately, the USPTO doesn't let you save search results and share them with others, so you'll have to run the searches yourself, which you can do by going to the USPTO site, choose Search under Trademarks, on the left, then searching for them (New User is fine) by numbers individually or just by the phrase UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. SCO's is first on the list, and if you click on it, and then click at the top on TDR, you will find all the documents in the matter, including their application and the USPTO's letters. To view them on a Mac, you'll have to download them. It's a Microsoft-loving system. Here's the TARR page if the link works, and you can get the whole story there. For one thing, we find out that SCO applied for the mark in two classes:

International Class: 009
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...,

International Class: 042 Providing web services, namely, providing web-based computer programs so that users or other web-based computer programs can dynamically interact with the web-based computer programs

SCO has six months from that September letter to try to change the USPTO's mind, which is why the USPTO lists the application still as LIVE, they told me, but so far SCO has taken no such steps, at least as far as what can be seen on the USPTO website.

The USPTO also lists two UNIX SYSTEMS LABORATORIES marks as dead, serial numbers 74354526 (word mark, typed drawing) and 74068205 (same, but for computer consulting services) abandoned in 1993, and one, number 74068206, as cancelled in 2000.

To go forward, SCO would have to offer some proof that USL is now part of SCO. Ah, there's the rub. That same nagging problem SCO keeps bumping into. It's one thing to make a claim; it's quite another to prove it. They'd need to start by correcting the factual errors, one assumes. What factual errors? Well, what's this about Novell transferring the UNIX trademark to Santa Cruz?

2. SCO wrote about the Novell to Santa Cruz deal, "As part of the transaction, Novell assigned the UNIX and UNIXWARE trademarks to The Santa Cruz Operation." Novell didn't assign the UNIX trademark to Santa Cruz, according to the USPTO records, or according to The Open Group. Here's the assignment page for UNIX, where it shows clearly that Novell assigned the UNIX mark to X/Open. X/Open, now The Open Group, concurs:

In 1994 Novell (who had acquired the UNIX systems business of AT&T/USL) decided to get out of that business. Rather than sell the business as a single entity, Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and the specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX Specification) to The Open Group (at the time X/Open Company). Simultaneously, it sold the UNIX source code and the product implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO. The Open Group also owns the trademark UNIXWARE, transferred to them from SCO more recently.

And then on their trademark page, The Open Group tells us this:

Some trademark attributions still say Novell (or even AT&T or Bell Labs), which is correct?

UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

The correct attribution is:

"UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group"

Some licenses (which date from before the merger of X/Open Company with The Open Group) still require the following attribution:

"UNIX is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries, licensed exclusively through X/Open Company Ltd."

All licenses will be updated in due course; in the meantime, The Open Group is happy for either attribution to be used. Any other attribution is incorrect.

You, or SCO, may say, "That's *their* story." So, let's dig a little deeper.

I started all this research because when I saw SCO's August letter to the USPTO, I asked myself, why didn't SCO just file an assignment, if it thought sincerely that it was assigned the marks and that USL is now a part of SCO? One of the things you can search for on the USPTO site is trademark assignments, so that is where I decided to start. Here's what I found by searching for all Novell assignments, the assignment to X/Open of the Unix trademark:

Trademark Assignment Abstract of Title

Total Assignments: 3
Serial #: 73537419

Filing Dt: 05/13/1985
Reg #: 1390593
Reg. Dt: 04/22/1986
Registrant: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY

Mark: UNIX

Assignment: 1
Reel/Frame: 0711/0800
Received: Recorded: 05/18/1990
Pages: 0 Conveyance: ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST AND THE GOODWILL
Assignor: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
Exec Dt: 05/15/1990
Entity Type: CORPORATION
Citizenship: NEW YORK
Assignee:
UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC.
295 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE
BASKING RIDGE, NEW JERSEY 07920

Entity Type: CORPORATION
Citizenship: DELAWARE
Correspondent:
FRANK L. POLITANO
[address]

Assignment: 2

Reel/Frame: 1195/0248
Received: Recorded: 07/27/1994
Pages: 9
Conveyance: MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS.)
Assignor: UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC.
Exec Dt: 04/29/1994
Entity Type: CORPORATION
Citizenship: DELAWARE
Assignee:
NOVELL, INC.
[address]

Entity Type: CORPORATION
Citizenship: DELAWARE
Correspondent:
ANDREW P. BRIDGES
COLLEEN BAL
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
[address]

Assignment: 3

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
Citizenship: NONE
Assignee: X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED
APEX PLAZA
FORBURY ROAD
READING, BERKSHIRE, ENGLAND RG1 1AX

Entity Type: CORPORATION
Citizenship: ENGLAND
Correspondent:
FELSMAN, BRADLEY, VADEN, GUNTER & DILLON, LLP
JAMES E. BRADLEY
[address] Domestic rep:
FELSMAN, BRADLEY, VADEN, GUNTER & DILLON, LLP
[address]

So, according to these records the Open Group told the truth; the trademark UNIX was assigned to them by Novell. And the record says Novell assigned its entire interest over to the Open Group. Here's the complete list of all the Novell assignments. Here's the Novell to X/Open Company assignments, assigning the entire interest: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=73544900 and http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=73537419

Here's the UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES mark assignment page, which shows it going from Unix System Laboratories to Novell, and then Novell ("assigns the entire interest") to X/Open Company Limited, and this assignment was recorded in 1999, serial number 74068206 by means of a document dated 11/13/98. Hold that date in mind because we'll be coming back to it in a little while. But note that to apply for an assignment, you have to have a document evidencing the transfer of ownership to you.

That is what it looks like if you are registering an assignment. That isn't the method that SCO chose when it applied for the mark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES.

3. SCO wrote: "In 2001, The Santa Cruz Operation completed the sale of, inter alia, the UNIXWARE technologies to Caldera Systems, Inc. Caldera subsequently changed its name to The SCO Group. Because of this, the mark should be allowed to go on to publication." The implication is that in every hop, all assets transferred, beginning with the USL-Novell merger and continuing all the way through to Caldera. But note some rulings in the SCO v. IBM case and the SCO v. Novell litigation. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells just recently ruled in the SCO v. IBM litigation that the Novell to SCO transfer and the SCO to Caldera transfers did not transfer the entire businesses. This directly contradicts SCO's letter to the USPTO. They wrote, "In 1995, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. purchased all of the UNIX assets from Novell." According to Judge Wells, that isn't so. She ruled:

THE COURT: Thank you. I'm prepared to rule on this matter at this time. First, I find that the Novell to Santa Cruz transaction did not transfer the entirety of the business, nor did the Santa Cruz to Caldera transaction.

The presiding judge, Dale Kimball, in both the IBM and the SCO v. Novell cases has also made some rulings that do not help SCO. For example, in the IBM case, he wrote the following:

"Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities. Further, SCO, in its briefing, chose to cavalierly ignore IBM's claims that SCO could not create a disputed fact regarding whether it even owned the relevant copyrights."

And in the Novell case, he wrote regarding the APA:

"The Amendment also contains no transfer language in the form of 'seller hereby conveys to buyer.' Given the similarly ambiguous language in the APA with respect to the transfer of assets -- seller 'will' sell, convey, assign, and buyer 'will' purchase and acquire -- it is questionable on the face of the documents whether there was any intention to transfer the copyrights as of the date the amendment was executed. Moreover, the use of the term 'required' in Amendment No. 2 without any accompanying list or definition of which copyrights would be required for SCO to exercise its rights in the technology is troublesome given the number of copyrighted works involved in the transaction. There is enough ambiguity in the language of Amendment No. 2 that, at this point in the litigation, it is questionable whether Amendment No. 2 was meant to convey the required copyrights or whether the parties contemplated a separate writing to actually transfer the copyrights after the 'required' copyrights were identified. Therefore, this is not a case where the court can immediately conclude that there is a writing under Section 204(a).

"Although the case will obviously require contract interpretation, at this stage of the litigation, the agreements raise substantial doubt as to whether the APA as amended by Amendment No. 2 qualifies as a Section 204(a) writing."

These rulings were known to SCO when they wrote their letter to the USPTO in August of 2005, and they mentioned nothing about them or in any other way indicated that there was any dispute about their ownership of the assets they claimed to have received, at least not in any of the documents I have been able to find.

Now, when the USPTO sent its final letter of denial, it referenced some trademarks they show as belonging to The Open Group, which I think SCO also had every reason to know about by August of 2005. And that brings us to an intriguing subplot and some answers to some mysteries.

4. The iNUX Trademark Opposition

You'll remember that when SCO first applied for the USL trademark we dug up a case between X/Open, now called The Open Group, and a guy in Tampa, FL, named Wayne Gray. Back in 2001, Gray wanted the trademark iNUX to use on a purportedly Linux-based operating system he said he wanted to sell. I say purportedly because I can't find any such operating system in existence, and even the website speaks of it in the future tense. The Open Group opposed his application, and for a while, it seemed to be a normal opposition process. Then, after SCO started claiming it owned UNIX in various courts, it got really interesting because this supposed "Linux" person vigorously used SCO's court claims to try to "prove" that SCO is the rightful owner of the UNIX trademark, not the Open Group. I wrote to him in 2004 to ask him what was up, but to date I have received no reply. I finally concluded that it's just another in a line of lone-gunman litigants who have shown up just happening to want precisely what SCO wants.

After SCO filed its claims against IBM and Novell, the fellow started using SCO's legal filings and SCO's arguments to buttress his own claims. And he started asking for an enormous amount of discovery. And here's the thing I found interesting: he subpoenaed not only The Open Group but Novell and SCO too. I found 284 pages of discovery requests for documents. He even asked for documents concerning the USL v. BSDi lawsuit.

For a while, it seemed to be helping him to file SCO's court claims as exhibits, and the USPTO tends to give lone litigants more than the usual patience anyway, I imagine. The most recent notation on the docket on the case is February of 2005, saying that proceedings were suspended pending a ruling on a motion which still has not been decided. They're probably doing what I've been doing, trying to understand this whole UNIX mess.

Gray is asking the USPTO to take the UNIX marks away from Open Group. Gray claims SCO got all the IP in the Novell to Santa Cruz and the SCO to Caldera transfers, and he used SCO's documents as "proof". Gray's other angle is that the Open Group doesn't deserve the trademark for a long list of reasons that are too off the point of this article to explain, even if they did receive them from Novell. You can just click on all his documents, and I do mean all, to get the whole picture. He's very long-winded. Here's the page listing everything that has been going on since 2001 in this weirdo Opposition action before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. (Here's the interlocutory attorney who is hearing the case.)

If you open number 41 on that list, on page 2, X/Open says this:

Novell granted X/Open an exclusive license to use the UNIX mark in an agreement dated May 10, 1994, and subsequently assigned the UNIX mark to X/Open pursuant to that agreement.

Then on page 8 of document 47 (X/Open's Motion for a Protective Order, the one that is hanging in the air), X/Open says there was "a May 10, 1994 agreement in which Novell granted X/Open an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to use and sublicense the UNIX mark, and agreed to assign the Mark to X/Open." That will help us to understand the wording of the 1996 Amendment 2 of the 1995 APA, which said the Excluded Assets were: "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies." Novell had already promised the UNIX trademark to X/Open in 1994. So, SCO got the UNIX source code, but not the trademark, X/Open says. On page 16, it says: "SCO never owned the UNIX mark and was not a party to the May 10, 1994 agreement between Novell and X/Open."

Then, in document 57, on page 5, the Open Group says something I never knew. It solves the mystery of the 1998 date. Open Group says there is a three-way agreement between X/Open, Novell, and SCO "dispositive of Gray's allegation that Novell transferred the UNIX mark to SCO and not to X/Open." And both sides reference a 1998 Deed of Assignment from Novell to X/Open, the document that officially transferred the mark, as per the promise in 1994. What stands out to me in this part of the story is that SCO, because it was involved in discovery in this trademark opposition, knows about that three-way agreement, but when it sent its letter to the USPTO, it never even mentioned it. I realize that Santa Cruz was a party to the agreement, but despite claiming to be Santa Cruz, SCO Group seems to be missing some paperwork you'd think a successor in interest would have, so I stress that even if they had never heard of the 1998 confirmation, they certainly know about it from the iNUX case.

Document 29 is a request to amend, and it has SCO's complaints in the IBM and Novell court cases attached, as well as the March 17, 2003 "Dear Fortune 1000 and Global 500 Customer" letter from SCO, on page 96.

And on page 109, you can see the Deed of Assignment from Novell to X/Open dated November 13, 1998 for the trademarks serial numbers 1392203, 1390593, 1780785, and if you look at page 110, you'll see that the marks that were transferred to Open Group were UNIX and UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES.

Yes. You read it right. UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, the mark SCO told the USPTO should belong to them. Incredible, no?

You'll find on p. 114 the claims made by Gray. You see him asking for cancellation of the marks on page 119.

Here's the page of everything SCO has had assigned to it that are pertinent to Unix: SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS, serial number 76490790; SCO, #73801197; CALDERA VOLUTION, #76299429; OPEN LINUX, #75250949; and OPENDOS, #75283050.

That's it. No UNIX. No UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. It also didn't get the mark UNIX SVR4.2, or at least not according to these USPTO records, which shows it still belonging to Novell, serial # 74288588, which it got from Unix System Laboratories, Inc.

But here's something odd. On this page, we find a UNIXWARE mark allegedly transferred to SCO. They evidently filed this paperwork themselves on December 17, 2002, and the document they filed to evidence their claim was dated August 1, 2000. That would almost certainly be the Santa Cruz Operation/ Caldera Holdings, Inc./Caldera, Inc. APA. If you examine the hops on the assignment page, that is the trajectory, in fact. The earlier hops are from Unix System Laboratories to Novell by merger. Then Novell, it says, transferred its entire interest to Santa Cruz, and then it says Santa Cruz assigned the mark to Caldera. There was no Santa Cruz Operation in existence in 2002. It was by then Tarantella, and the date is identical for the later Caldera hops, so it appears that in December of 2002, SCO filed this assignment of the mark to itself, based on the APA. As we've seen earlier, it has been cancelled as a Santa Cruz mark. The Open Group says it was transferred to them by SCO, and that three-way deal that surfaced in the iNUX case appears to be the document that did it. Clearly this alleged assignment from Santa Cruz to Caldera is very much in doubt, and yet SCO does not mention any cloud over this assignment.

All the USPTO evidence I can find indicates to me that SCO didn't get the UNIX mark, the UNIXWARE mark (except for the page SCO where SCO makes the claim itself), or the UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES mark. It also didn't get the mark UNIX SVR4.2.

One final thing I came across. In this Santa Cruz 10K talking about the then proposed sale of assets to Caldera, Santa Cruz (now Tarantella) records this detail:

Further, once this transaction is consummated, the ongoing operations of the company will be significantly altered. The Company's revenues will be derived from only two product lines - Tarantella products, which have only been recently introduced by the Company, and OpenServer products, which are mature products to be distributed on the Company's behalf by Caldera.

I didn't know that Caldera was originally supposed to be the distributor for Santa Cruz of OpenServer products. Did you? It sounds like something very much like what Novell arranged with Caldera, doesn't it? I realize there was a later deal but it's a piece I didn't know. It matches this wording in another 10K:

In August, 2000, SCO and Caldera Systems, Inc., (Nasdaq: CALD), entered into an agreement in which Caldera Systems would acquire assets from the SCO Server Software and Professional Services Divisions. The agreement is subject to the approval of regulatory agencies and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Caldera Systems, Inc. stockholders, and is expected to close in January 2001.

SCO will receive 28.6% ownership interest of Caldera, Inc., which is estimated to be an aggregate of approximately 18.4 million shares of Caldera stock and $7 million in cash. SCO will retain its Tarantella Division, and the SCO OpenServer revenue stream and intellectual properties.

Caldera will have exclusive distribution rights to SCO OpenServer and has agreed to service and support the SCO OpenServer customer base. Caldera will receive a sales commission and reimbursement for SCO OpenServer engineering and marketing expenses. SCO's operating profit for the SCO OpenServer products will be approximately 55% of future SCO OpenServer revenues.

So, here's my question. When SCO told the Utah court that it was all of its predecessors in interest, and that all assets transferred, and when it told the USPTO that USL was now part of SCO as a result, did it have available evidence to the contrary? If I found it, why couldn't they? They have a trademark attorney. (You will have noted that Boies Schiller is not the firm used for SCO's trademark work.)

And if they knew about all this, why didn't they mention it to the USPTO? Now it is possible there is an explanation. I confess that the more I dig, the more details I find and the less I feel I have the entire picture. But I have enough to know that the simplistic wording SCO offered to the USPTO was misleading in that it didn't present the whole story. Not by a mile.


  


A Trademark Tale | 194 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 06:18 AM EST
For current events and legal filings. Please make links clickable.

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 06:19 AM EST
If required.

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid me
Authored by: Anni on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 06:55 AM EST
This double talk makes me wince. What I can't understand is why they're doing
this. The appeal letter to USPTO is public. Filling the letter with such
nonsense must be potentially harmful to SCO in all litigations they are
currently in. Would they benefit so much from aquiring the trademark to USL that
it compensated the harm done in the process?

Why they want the USL trademark? What possible good could it do anymore?



---
Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IP Retained by SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
Did I get this right, SCO, when selling the unix buisiness to Caldera, retained
ALL OpenServer IP, and 55% of the License earnings from it?

So TSCOG doesn't even own OpenServer? Much less UNIX?

Would that also include the UNIX IP that TSCOG says was transfered to SCO? Does
this mean that even if Novell sold all UNIX IP to SCO (Which Novell says it
didn't), that SCO, according to it's 10K filings, never sold this to Caldera?

So for TSCOG to have a case against IBM, it would, even if it found evidence of
copying from UNIX to Linux by any IBM product, that not only Novell transfered
the copyrights to SCO, but that SCO in turn transfered this to Caldera. Both
which now look unlikely.

So for TSCOG to win this case, they would have to convince a jury that a whole
chain of events happened according to their statements, when all evidence
suggests otherwise.

1. They must show that UNIX IP was transfered from Novell to SCO. Doesn't look
like it now.

2. They must show that UNIX IP was transfered from SCO to Caldera, which
according to what is stated here, does not look like that happened.

3. They must find evidence of copying in Linux code donated by IBM. So fare they
have showed us nothing.

4. If they don't find any code, they must convince the jury about this so called
'contamination' theory, where TSCOG somehow controlls IBM's own code just
because it in some way was part of a UNIX related product.

So far, it does not seem as if TSCOG has got a shred of evidence for any of
those things.

Good luck in court, I say...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too bad...
Authored by: seraph_jeffery on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
Too bad stupidity and arrogance together aren't painful. The SCO guys would be
in constant agony. Tsk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A way to break into the APA?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 08:09 AM EST
Maybe this is a try to create a backdoor for the APA assignment/non-assignment.
"See we got the trademark so the APA wording is wrong and we really got a
complete UNIX transfer".

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Trademark Tale
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 08:27 AM EST
SCOG is definitely a bad faith outfit: they gamed the PR, the court system and
now the USPTO's Trademark Office.

Lying is a category that encompasses a multitude of activities, one of which is
the deliberate withholding of relevant facts, a second one is the deliberate
mischaracterization of facts and a third one is putting facts together in a way
that creates an impression that is opposite to the impression that should have
been created.

Based on the criteria above, SCOG has lied in its application to the Trademark
Office. In my opinion (IANAL), SCOG has attempted fraud in order to separate the
Open Group from its UNIX trademarks.


---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could SCO lose the Unix trademark?
Authored by: Aim Here on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 08:55 AM EST
The Open Brand Trademark License, section 6.2 states that

"The Licensee undertakes to not do or permit to be done any act ... which might prejudice the right of X/Open Company to the trademarks..."

Telling the USPTO 'We are the Open Group, All their base are belong to us, especially the Unix trademark' presumably qualifies.

Assuming this is the version of the agreement that SCO signed (or their agreement has an equivalent clause), perhaps X/Open could initiate whatever remedies the license allows to strip SCO of it's Unix trademark. It would be amusing to see them defrocked as a Unix vendor...

[ Reply to This | # ]

They have "Open Linux" trademarked? I thought Linus Torvalds owns the "LINUX" name & trademark?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 08:58 AM EST
How could Caldera/newSCO have a trademark with the name "OPEN
LINUX"... when Linus Torvalds owns the LINUX name and trademark? How is
this possible?

Did the USPTO make a mistake that needs to be challenged?

Can TheScoGroup/CalderReNamed, be "Open Linux"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Trademark Tale - with more contradictions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 09:05 AM EST

If PJ can do this, why didn't the SCOfolk? Contradictions hurt their claim.
Contradictions hurt their credibility. SCO witnesses will have to say they were
ignorant at best, or that they lied at worst. They will then be asked if this
contradiction supports their claim. They will then be asked if they would have
made their claim if they had acted consistently with this evidence. They will
then be asked to withdraw their claim in court before the judge or jury. This
stuff will never go to trial.

webster not anonymous

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this the same inux?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 09:06 AM EST
Found in Google...


This seems to be an inux in Tampa Florida

http://linuxpr.com/releases/1032.html

http://www.inux.com/


And apparently another (different or same?) one, up the road in Clearwater

http://www.quillandmouse.com/inux/


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Trademark Tale
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 09:16 AM EST
Two things:

1) Fraud.
2) Please excuse the language, but d your good!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do I now understand this right?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 09:50 AM EST

Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and the specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX Specification) to The Open Group (at the time X/Open Company). Simultaneously, it sold the UNIX source code and the product implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO.

If my new understanding is correct, Novell sold administration over their existing licenses to Santa Cruz. They also sold Santa Cruz a product that - with the trademark and specifications going to the Open Group - is little different from AIX with regard to how it relates to Unix Sys V.

Umm.... wow, if my new understanding is correct Unixware is as now removed from original UNIX as anything else that's licensed. And that would be all SCOG "owns".

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 10:04 AM EST

SCO will retain its Tarantella Division, and the SCO OpenServer revenue stream and intellectual properties.

I seem to recall SCOG had "lost" the asset purchase agreement with Santa Cruz. Has that surfaced yet? If not, could the above explain why it so mysteriously got lost?

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the trademark is important
Authored by: elcorton on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 10:26 AM EST

It's clear now why fake SCO wanted the USL trademark. Novell acquired USL lock, stock, and barrel, and any copyrights that USL held transferred to Novell by operation of law; i.e., without the need for a specific writing.

Fake SCO knows there is no document transferring copyrights from Novell to real SCO. So it wants to argue that real SCO acquired USL from Novell as a unit, and that this same unit passed to fake SCO with all its assets intact: copyrights as well as trademarks. The language in the Novell-to-real- SCO APA excluding copyrights from the sale could then be interpreted as referring to copyrights that were not part of USL's assets. Ergo, fake SCO succeeded to all USL's copyrights by operation of law.

This is of course an absurd argument, but it's all they have.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So
Authored by: Ninthwave on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 11:16 AM EST
They have no proof the own anything, and the either did not know that, or they
are desperately trying to make everyone believe they own everything. Hmmmm
what does that make these people and why are they still wasting federal court
time with this charade. I really want Darl and Co to be locked in general
population for their crimes, no shipping them to the luxury of a federal pen.
But that would be justice oh well, you have a little bit of money and
connections and you can live a different life from us plebians. Why should I
have hoped that America would not have developed an aristocracy, when almost any
power does just that. Oh well somewhere their are true patriots who understand
the ideals of the constitution and this country's founding and maybe some day
freedom will ring and justice will be a tool accessible to all, until then money
talks, and the poor bleed.

---
I was, I am, I will be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trademark Agreement Section 6.2
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/tmla.pdf

I presume this applies to SCO's use of UNIX(tm) and UNIXware(tm)

6.2 Subject to Sub-clause 2.3, the Licensee undertakes not to do or permit to be done any act which would or might jeopardize or invalidate the Trademarks or their registration nor to do any act which might assist or give rise to an application to remove the Trademarks from any national register or which might prejudice the right of X/Open Company to the Trademarks; provided that (notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Agreement) the Licensee shall have the right either alone or with others to seek a declaration or other order from a court or other authority having competent jurisdiction that, by reason of acts or omissions (other than those done by the Licensee in breach of its obligations hereunder), the registration of any of the Trademarks is invalid in any part of the Territory.

Also a good part:

5.3 The Licensee shall not use or register any mark or name confusingly similar to the Trademarks in respect of any goods or services.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl McBride is an accomplished liar
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 12:50 PM EST
Unfortunately when lies collide with the truth, the truth wins. That is the
unassailable fact that Darl and SCO find so difficult to accept and why it so
damages their business plans.

So here's a big hint for success in business Darl, a good manager manages the
assets he has, not the ones he wishes he had.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wayne Gray
Authored by: tredman on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 12:55 PM EST
"You'll remember that when SCO first applied for the USL trademark we dug
up a case between X/Open, now called The Open Group, and a guy in Tampa, FL,
named Wayne Gray."

As a citizen of the Tampa Bay area, I'd like to apologize for Wayne. Every town
has its bad apples, and apparently we let this one slip past us, though I'm sure
there is more than one LUG around here that's ready to give him a brutal atomic
wedgie.

In reference to X/Open's deed of assignment, and in relation to the whole
copyright contention between SCOX and Novell, all I can say to SCOX is
"YES, THAT IS WHAT AN INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE LOOKS LIKE! You don't have
one of those, do you?"

Finally, PJ, you seem to think it's incredulous that SCOX would not know about
the agreements in the past between all of these different parties. To me, I
don't find it suprising at all. They went so headlong into this mess, the lack
of due diligence is obvious. Besides, with the company changing hands and
changing strategies so many times, there's probably no one person within the
organization who has a complete grasp of the history involved.


---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

How is this NOT perjury?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 01:24 PM EST
If I file a knowingly false document with a government agency I could get
indicted for perjury or maybe fraud too. SCOG, with far more legal resources,
seems to do it all the time with total indifference.

Why aren't those lawyers in jail?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Trademark Tale
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 01:24 PM EST
One might wonder if some part of the licenses SCO sold to Microsoft and Sun
grants them the right to use the name Unix.

---
Are you a bagel or a mous?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • A Trademark Tale - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 03:24 PM EST
    • A Trademark Tale - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 11:30 PM EST
A Liar's Tale
Authored by: rp$eeley on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 01:53 PM EST
Would somebody please explain to me how it is that SCO continues to get away
with telling lies to the US government? Is there no justice?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slander of title?
Authored by: chribo on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 03:18 PM EST

It's about a year ago, when I learned the term Slander of Titel.

As far as I understood, it means that somebody claims - in bad faith - property owend by somebody else.
This seems to be the case when a company - in bad faith - tries to register a trademark which is owned by an other company or consortium.

Honni soit qui mal y pense

chribo

[ Reply to This | # ]

SEC filings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 03:35 PM EST
Does this lack of trademark affect the claims in the SEC filings?

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

Supports theory that BSF does not direct legal strategy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 04:38 PM EST
I HATE conspiracy theories. But, fitting these pieces together tends to point
to someone directing a comprehensive legal strategy for TSG, and BSF is just a
dancer on the floor doing the best it can with what it is told to do.

Why hire one of the best legal strategists in the country if you are not going
to use them?

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

A nice piece of investigation work, PJ
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, February 17 2006 @ 07:16 PM EST
I guess that was your little "research project".

It's shocking, shocking! what those guys have been up to.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, your research is truely amazing!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 18 2006 @ 11:20 AM EST
Keep up the good work. I am in awe.

And, thanks...

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Trademark Tale
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 20 2006 @ 05:59 AM EST
I didn't know that Caldera was originally supposed to be the distributor for Santa Cruz of OpenServer products. Did you?

Actually ... that *does* match my memories. I remember being astonished the first time I heard that Caldera supposedly now owned all the old-SCO Unix stuff.

The way I remember it, the idea was that Caldera wanted SCOs distributor network to use for OpenLinux. I seem to recall there were press releases to that effect back then. I'm not sure what SCO wanted out of the deal, but ISTR that was being mentioned, too, back then.

Back when Caldera still was usually seen as good guys ... we often hear about "goodwill" in these APAs and SEC filings: they certainly managed to piss that away pretty dramatically!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suppose it's Feb. 4th ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 20 2006 @ 10:40 AM EST
... and discovery ends on the 27th but you don't want evidence from The Open
Group to be introduced by you or your opponent. How can you get it excluded
while making it look like you want it introduced?

Let's further posit that you have a certain reputation for doing less than
stellar work. You may feel it's undeserved, but nonetheless hung on you by
consensus. Maybe you can make it work *for* you to keep certain evidence out of
the case!

[ 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 )