Groklaw's Rand McNatt reports that SCO has now applied to register some eleven new trademarks.
They seem to have no sense of irony or awareness of how they are viewed by the world, so one of them is for a trademark on the phrase "EXECUTION PROCESS SERVER". With all their litigation, no doubt this will come in handy for them, whatever the product is they mean to identify this way.
Just horsing around. I couldn't resist. No doubt this actually has to do with computer functionality, but ... well . . . let the jokes commence, as Rand put it. I just hope they don't plan to use the EXECUTION PROCESS SERVER on me, whatever it is. The execution part, especially.
They do set themselves up, don't they? What can one say about a SCO trademark for ME, INC.? My brain's pesky sense of humor explodes with possibilities. And they have applied for the trademark ABOVE THE LINE. Hey, don't forget BELOW THE BELT. It's a natural, methinks. I know: BELOW THE BELT EXECUTION PROCESS SERVER. Or maybe: BELOW THE BELT SURROGATE LITIGANT EXECUTION PROCESS SERVER.
I know. But it's simply irresistible, and I can't help but enjoy a good laugh.
Here is the entire list:
Rand jokingly writes:
Looks like they're planning to corner the market on multi-user UNIX SVr5 cellphones ;)
BTW, the registered trademark(s) to ROADRUNNER as applied to "providing multiple-user access to a global computer information network for transfer and dissemination of a wide range of information" are held by...hold your breath...Warner Bros.
If you want to search for them yourself, go here, choose "New User Form Search", then enter sco
group in the"Search Term:" box, choose "Field: Owner Name and
Address" and "Result Must Contain: The Exact search Phrase", and
finally, hit "Submit Query". Please remember to logout when you're
The USPTO has sent SCO some paperwork on their earlier application to trademark UNIX SYSTEMS LABORATORIES and USL:
"2005-02-03 - Non-final action mailed"
Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made.
You can read them here:
I'm glad they noticed there might be a teensy weensie issue here.