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
Two More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy & Some Trademark Oddities
Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:34 PM EDT

There is another bill [PDF] in the SCO bankruptcy for us to go over with a fine-toothed comb, this one from Pachulski Stang, their 20th bill. There is another from Tanner [PDF]. And we have finished doing the text of the exhibits to SCO's proposed sale, and I noticed some things in the trademark list I thought I might highlight. It always pays to do these text versions. You do notice things that otherwise don't seem to stand out.

First, I notice a trademark on the list is actually dead, WEBMIN, cancelled as of January of this year, so I think it might be useful to go through that list more carefully than SCO did. Certainly a potential buyer would want to know what it is actually getting, I would think. And creditors might want to know if the sale price makes any sense. And that's not the only odd thing.

There are some overseas UNIXWARE trademarks listed as registered years ago, 15 by my count and 2 in the US, but which SCO lists as "pending". Normally, something wouldn't be pending since the mid-90s. So that caught my eye, and I see there is a footnote:

(1) Assigned to X/Open Company Limited; X/Open's acceptance not confirmed as of October 15, 2007.
Say, what? I can't explain this, but there it is. Is SCO angling to get them back? Is this a footnote traceable to the Florida case? I simply don't know. I just highlight it.

Here's what I see when I search for the mark WEBMIN:

Word Mark - WEBMIN
Goods and Services - (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer software, namely, software that enables browser-based remote system network management and administration.
FIRST USE: 19971005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19971005
Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 76013710
Filing Date - March 30, 2000
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1A
Published for Opposition - January 8, 2002
Registration Number - 2554885
Registration Date - April 2, 2002
Owner - (REGISTRANT) Caldera Systems, Inc. CORPORATION UTAH 240 West Center Street Orem UTAH 84057
Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record - Wesley L. Austin
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD
Cancellation Date - January 10, 2009
One might think that the footnote about the UnixWare trademarks being pending was SCO being extra scrupulous, but they weren't careful with this mark, so that makes less sense. I am sure in due time we'll find out what this is about. If you are living in any of the countries on the list and can check the history of these marks, that would be useful.

Here's the docket in the bankruptcy:

06/30/2009 - 823 - Interim Application for Compensation (Nineteenth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses as Accountants to the Debtors for the Period from June 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 7/20/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/01/2009 - 824 - Schedules/Statements filed: Sch F,. /Third Amended Schedule F of SCO Operations, Inc. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/01/2009 - 825 - Notice of Service /Notice of Amendments to Schedules of Liabilities and Time to File Claims in Response to Such Amendments Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/02/2009 - 826 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions Regarding Debtors' Motion for Authority to Sell Property Outside the Ordinary Course of Business Free and Clear of Interests and for Approval of Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Conjunction With Sale (related document(s) 815 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 - 827 - Monthly Application for Compensation (Twentieth) and Reimbursement of Expenses of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period from April 1, 2009 through April 30, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 7/22/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

So three projects, if you are in the mood:
1. go down the list of trademarks and check if they are live marks.
2. check the pending list in your country.
3. look over the Pachulski bill to see if there's anything interesting in it.
One thing I notice is they have the March 30th hearing transcript. I'll try to get it for us soon. It goes public on July 8:
04/09/2009 - 739- Transcript regarding Hearing Held 3/30/2009 Remote electronic access to the transcript is restricted until 7/8/2009. The transcript may be viewed at the Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office. [For information about how to contact the transcriber, call the Clerk's Office] or [Contact the Court Reporter/Transcriber Doman Transcribing, Telephone number (856)435-7172.] (RE: related document(s) 727 ). Notice of Intent to Request Redaction Deadline Due By 4/16/2009. Redaction Request Due By 4/30/2009. Redacted Transcript Submission Due By 5/11/2009. Transcript access will be restricted through 7/8/2009. (BJM) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
Another strange thing I can't explain in the list of exhibits. I see a lot of equipment listed for the UK subsidiary on Schedule 5.22, if I have understood the exhibit properly. But as I mentioned once before, a SCO SEC filing back in April of 2003, this 10Q said the UK sub was being shut down:
In March 2003, in connection with management’s decision to establish strategic European headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and the Company’s United Kingdom (“UK”) subsidiary, SCO Group, Ltd, not performing at expected levels, the Company determined that SCO Group, Ltd would be wound up. On March 26, 2003, the board of directors of SCO Group, Ltd., obtained administrative relief in accordance with Rule 2.2 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 of the UK. In connection with the approved administrative relief, the operations of SCO Group, Ltd. were transferred to an administrator that was appointed by the court to complete the winding-up process. As of April 30, 2003, the operations of SCO Group, Ltd were no longer under the control of the Company and the Company had been released of any liabilities in exchange for the net assets of SCO Group, Ltd. The Company has included in its statement of operations for the three and six months ended April 30, 2003, the operations for SCO Group, Ltd., for the entire periods.

In connection with the winding-up of SCO Group, Ltd.’s operations, the Company incurred charges for severance and related payments for employees totaling $972,000. As a result of the administrative relief and transfer of SCO Group, Ltd to the administrator, the Company reversed $836,000 of previously recorded accruals related to the leased facilities in the UK, of which $415,000 was recorded in connection with the Tarantella Acquisition. The winding-up of SCO Group Ltd resulted in a net restructuring charge during the quarter ended April 30, 2003 of $136,000.

Now, according to the proposed sale, the UK subsidiary would be sold to unXis, minus certain excluded assets. The equipment list includes purchase dates both before and after this SEC filing date. And SCO lists leases for the UK too. There may be a perfectly logical explanation, but I don't know what it is. Overall, the general sloppiness makes me wonder if this proposed sale document was ever meant to be real.

Update: I see I replicated the Tanner bill, which I posted earlier. Too many filings at once, and I lost track. I haven't read it yet, so I'll post anything I see of interest in it here.

Update 2: I checked the US trademark office for any UNIXWARE marks. It lists only one live one, and the owner is X/Open, nothing pending about it that I can see:

Word Mark - UNIXWARE
Goods and Services - IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Operating system software.
FIRST USE: 19921214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19921214
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code - (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number - 78833448
Filing Date - March 9, 2006
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1A
Published for Opposition - December 19, 2006
Owner - (APPLICANT) X/Open Company Limited CORPORATION ENGLAND Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road Reading, Berkshire UNITED KINGDOM RG1 1LX
Attorney of Record - Evan A. Raynes
Prior Registrations - 1390593;1392203
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator - LIVE
Note that SCO lists two as pending with the following application numbers, 74/433,402 and 74/433,508. The USPTO lists them both as serial numbers and as DEAD marks. *508 is a drawing:
Typed Drawing
Word Mark - UNIXWARE
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for functioning as a compiler, translator and debugger for use with computer languages; computer programs for accessing networks; transaction processing software; graphical use interface software; computer graphics software; and data management software. FIRST USE: 19921214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19921214
Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 74433508
Filing Date - September 3, 1993
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1B
Published for Opposition - December 30, 1997
Registration Number - 2241666
Registration Date - April 27, 1999
Owner - (REGISTRANT) SANTA CRUZ OPERATION, INC., THE CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 400 ENCINAL STREET LEGAL DEPARTMENT SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA 95060

(LAST LISTED OWNER) X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATION UNITED KINGDOM Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road Reading, Berkshire UNITED KINGDOM RG1 1LX

Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record - Wesley L. Austin
Prior Registrations - 1390593;1392203;1666671;1780785;1848735;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD
Cancellation Date - February 4, 2006

The Assignment page shows that SCO assigned it to X/Open as of June 5, 2006:
Reel/Frame: 3321/0540 - Received: 06/05/2006 - Recorded: 06/05/2006 - Pages: 6

Conveyance:
ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST
Assignor:
THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Assignee:
X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED
APEX PLAZA, BLOCK A, 2ND FLOOR, FORBURY ROAD
READING, BERKSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM RG1 1AX

Correspondent:
EVAN A. RAYNES
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, ET AL.
[address]

The other one, *402, is also a drawing, also assigned to X/Open the same date:
Typed Drawing
Word Mark - UNIXWARE
Goods and Services - (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 038. G & S: operating system software. FIRST USE: 19921214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19921214
Mark Drawing Code - (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number - 74433402
Filing Date - September 3, 1993
Current Filing Basis - 1A
Original Filing Basis - 1A
Published for Opposition - April 26, 1994
Registration Number - 1845474
Registration Date - July 19, 1994
Owner -(REGISTRANT) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 190 River Road Summit NEW JERSEY 07901

(LAST LISTED OWNER) X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATION UNITED KINGDOM Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road Reading, Berkshire UNITED KINGDOM RG1 1LX
Assignment Recorded - ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record - Wesley L. Austin
Type of Mark - TRADEMARK
Register - PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text - SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator - DEAD
Cancellation Date April 23, 2005

Update 3: In light of the recent tax ruling against Xilinx, which they detail in a SEC filing and which is commented on by the Wall Street Journal, what does Schedule 5.4(b), Authorized Equity in Purchased Subsidiaries, mean? Anything? And how can Canada have 100,000,000 authorized shares? The UK one million? Has that always been so? From the Xilinx filing:

On August 30, 2005, the Tax Court issued its opinion concerning whether the value of stock options must be included in the cost sharing agreement with Xilinx Ireland. The Tax Court agreed with the Company that no amount for stock options was to be included in the cost sharing agreement, and thus, the Company had no tax, interest, or penalties due for this issue. The Tax Court entered its decision on May 31, 2006. On August 25, 2006, the IRS appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company and the IRS presented oral arguments to a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court on March 12, 2008. On May 27, 2009, the Company received a 2-1 adverse judicial ruling from the Appeals Court reversing the Tax Court decision and holding that the Company should include stock option amounts in its cost sharing agreement with Xilinx Ireland. The Company does not agree with the Appeals Court decision and is reviewing its alternatives as a result of the decision.

From the Wall Street Journal's explanation of the significance of the ruling:
In a decision that could have wide tax implications for U.S. multinational companies, a federal appeals court handed a victory to the Internal Revenue Service in a dispute over how companies allocate their costs between different countries....

The case involves so-called transfer pricing, the complex arrangements companies use to allocate costs and revenue between operations in different tax jurisdictions....

In Xilinx's case, the San Jose, Calif., company allocated a portion of its research and development costs to an Irish subsidiary. However, when it came to stock options granted to the company's research employees, Xilinx kept in the U.S. the entire value of the tax deductions related to those options. None of the deductions were allocated to the subsidiary in Ireland, where corporate income-tax rates are significantly lower than in the U.S., thus lowering Xilinx's global tax burden.

I know nothing about this area of law, and I don't understand SCO's list, so I will have to leave it to those more knowledgeable than I what it all means, if anything. As I understand the WSJ's coverage, it seems it could impact any international company, depending on how they do their taxes.

  


Two More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy & Some Trademark Oddities | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
O/T (Off Topic) here please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:41 PM EDT
Don't forget to make links clickable.

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:42 PM EDT
... if any.

Please show the correction in the subject line.

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Please quote the article's title in the subject line...

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Haiku perhaps??
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:46 PM EDT
Seems we're due for some...

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy & Some Trademark Oddities
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 03:15 PM EDT
>
There may be a a perfectly logical explanation, but I don't know what it is.
<

Noise. Obscure the signal.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pachulski bill
Authored by: Erwan on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 03:40 PM EDT

IANAL, but it seems they only billed 13.80 hours of mostly administrative tasks; review and file MOR, review and file certificate of no objections...

Nine people have billed their time but one paralegal who billed for 5.30 hours is the only one to have spent more than 2 hours.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

trademarks by country thread
Authored by: Erwan on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 03:43 PM EDT
One sub-thread per country, please.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy & Some Trademark Oddities
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 04:30 PM EDT

1) The UK business unit is free and clear of any debts by now.

2) They are trying to show the X/Open trademarks were never successfully reassigned to a UK corporation. So the trademarks devolve back the the previous owners perhaps.

Adds up to moving out of the US court system jurisdiction and starting the lawsuits up with other people's money and in UK courts. I wonder if RBS has any involvement in this. They did own a big chunk of SCO a few years ago.

With the UK in such a financial mess, might their courts lean a bit toward a troubled UK bank's position on litigation with 'billions and billions' of dollars or pounds sterling in it? Especially if the payoff were coming from outside the UK?

Afterall, the UK has turned into one strange nation in the last decade. Their just a hoop and skip from becoming a Police State. Anyone following the lives that litigation can take on in the UK knows this is not the land to go to get things done. 'Bleak House', although an old story, seems to be replayed everyday in the UK. Just read up on litigation on whether potato chips are food or snack for taxing purposes. That took decades to resolve.

Question: How would this scenario affect ongoing litigation on the US?

[ Reply to This | # ]

WEBMIN - They cannot be serious!
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 05:06 PM EDT
Webmin is FOSS! Has been since October 1997, and is available on many Linux distros, amongst other things.

Not being an expert on trademark law, or any law for that matter, I have to wonder, is/was there a problem with the trademark? Or has something else been going on?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Webmin
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 05:20 PM EDT
Webmin is a web based system administration tool. I used it a number of years
ago, and it seemed fairly easy to use for simple tasks. I'm not sure I would
feel comfortable using it for a public web site though. It runs on Linux, BSD,
Unix, etc. The overall license is similar to BSD. The web site is at
http://www.webmin.com/

Most of it was written by one author, Jamie Cameron. Apparently, he at one time
worked for Caldera (1999 to 2001), at which time he worked full time on Webmin.
He left them to work for someone else, at which time he also worked full time on
Webmin. He is currently working for Google (not on Webmin though).

I just downloaded the tarball and grepped for copyright notices. Caldera has
some copyrights in there (from someone other than Cameron). Their stuff seems to
have a GPL license though. There are also files with Mandrake and other
copyrights as well. These seem to be distro specific files that were contributed
by others.

I don't know if Caldera had reasonable grounds for claiming a trademark on
Webmin. If they claim it was first used in 1997, that was 2 years before Cameron
worked for them. I'm not sure how much Webmin gets used these days though. I
haven't heard the name in years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Status of UK company
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 05:25 PM EDT
A company called "The SCO Group Ltd" was dissolved on 17/03/2009. Its
company number was 02063779.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Group, Ltd, not performing at expected levels
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 05:26 PM EDT
So, SCO Group, Ltd has not been performing at expected levels, but the rest of
SCO Group is?

Was SCO Group Ltd not nose diving fast enough?

[ Reply to This | # ]

UnixWare Trademarks
Authored by: sk43 on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 05:57 PM EDT
The two DEAD trademarks apparently expired because X/Open forgot to renew them.

The 78833448 serial number is a new submission by X/Open. It is live, but an
opposition has been filed. By Wayne Gray. For conflicting with his INUX
trademark. The opposition has been suspended pending the outcome of a
"Civil Action". Presumably the Florida lawsuit r.e. racketeering and
fraud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trademark transfers to X/Open
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 09:46 PM EDT

I'm recalling an earlier article where it was mentioned that some of the trademarks had been included in the deal with Santa Cruz, but earlier (in 1993) Novell had transferred those marks to X/Open. There was mention of a document somewhere in the sale that confirmed that X/Open held those marks regardless of what the sale documents might say.

SCO may just be trying to pull a fast one here, saying that they hadn't received confirmation that X/Open had accepted the transfer. Which is technically correct, but it wasn't SCO that was involved in the actual transfers so X/Open wouldn't have given them any explicit confirmation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy & Some Trademark Oddities
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 05 2009 @ 11:52 PM EDT
I've used webmin quite frequently in the past, when I have worked in offices
where all but port 80 is blocked, and I have needed to log in and run commands
on my home machine. Webmin has http based shell access, and it is extremely easy
to set up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Xilinx
Authored by: anthracyda on Monday, July 06 2009 @ 02:08 PM EDT
The Xilinx decision would have nothing to do with the GAAP equity in a foreign
subsidiaries. It would also require that SCO have a cost sharing agreement with
its foreign subsidiaries (I don't know one way or the other). All the 9th
Circuit decision really means is that the IRS has the authority to allocate
income between US companies and their foreign affiliates in any way that it
wants to (regardless of whether unrelated companies would act that way). Seeing
as SCO has probably never made any money, the IRS is unlikely to care.

[ 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 )