Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Caldera

SCO Playing Name Games 210

Ghost in the Shell Game writes "We've long known that SCO has had a twisted view of UNIX history, sometimes pretending to be oldSCO when it suits them, and a separate business entity when it does not. However, according to this piece on Groklaw, they're now registering the UNIX System Laboratories trademark in what looks like an attempt to confuse history further. If you're wondering how they can do this, the USL trademark was abandoned in 1993, when USL was bought out by Novell. Hopefully, no one will be fooled by this name game, any more than we were when the spyware maker Gator changed their name to Claria."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Playing Name Games

Comments Filter:
  • by Danborg ( 62420 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:41PM (#9835655)
    I should register "Osbourne Computer" or "Altair" or something equally cool, geeky and dead.
    • is Whirlwind still availiable? good name for a game console, don't you think?
    • by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:44PM (#9835700)
      I think "Wang" would be a more appropriate name for them.
    • Before you try to register such names you may want to consider the legal requirements. Here is an excerpt from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/app content.htm#basis:

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/app content.htm#basis

      Cheers!

      Erick

      • by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:49PM (#9835776)
        Here is the actual excerpt.... BASIS FOR FILING

        The application should include your "basis" for filing. Most U.S. applicants base their application on their current use of the mark in commerce, or their intent to use their mark in commerce in the future.

        What is "use in commerce"?

        For the purpose of obtaining federal registration, "commerce" means all commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate; for example, interstate commerce or commerce between the U.S. and another country. "Use in commerce" must be a bona fide use of the mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not use simply made to reserve rights in the mark. Generally, acceptable use is as follows:

        For goods: the mark must appear on the goods, the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods, and the goods must be sold or transported in commerce.

        For services: the mark must be used or displayed in the sale or advertising of the services, and the services must be rendered in commerce.

        If you have already started using the mark in commerce, you may file based on that use. A "use" based application must include a sworn statement (usually in the form of a declaration) that the mark is in use in commerce, listing the date of first use of the mark anywhere and the date of first use of the mark in commerce. A properly worded declaration is included in the USPTO standard application form. The applicant or a person authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant must sign the statement. The application should include a specimen showing use of the mark in commerce.

        What is "intent to use"?

        If you have not yet used the mark, but plan to do so in the future, you may file based on a good faith or bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. You do not have to use the mark before you file your application.

        An "intent to use" application must include a sworn statement (usually in the form of a declaration) that you have a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. A properly worded declaration is included in the USPTO standard application form. The applicant or a person authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant must sign the statement.

    • There was a great name for a soundcard model: "the Mockingboard" (the first soundcard I ever heard about, for apple II)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Sco Sco bobo, banana fana mo mo, fee fye ba bo, SCO!

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Darl McBride has whined himself back into the early stages of childhood. Film at eleven.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:42PM (#9835674)
    ... Your lawsuit is against SCO. But we're UNIX System Labratories.
  • Name game (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ViolentGreen ( 704134 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:43PM (#9835693)
    I think the name game is more closely related to the original Napster vs the current Napster then the Claria/Gator bs.
    • The issue with the Napster name is exactly the opposite...they're being sued because the original investors wanted to buy the name back in bankrupcy court...then some how managed to get it thru an aquisition. Now the RIAA wants to sue the new owners for "profiting" from the name they bankrupted previously because it's synonomious with online music trading.

      It's the opposite of this...the RIAA wants to sue anybody that even uses or sells the Napster name simply as a pissing match.

  • cigs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mutewinter ( 688449 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:44PM (#9835704)
    How about Philip Morris changing its name to Altria, and then running "cigs are bad" ads using the name Philip Morris?
    • No, that's different.

      P.H. is trying to change their main corporate culture away from "a smoking comapny." Thus, they turned P.H. to a subsidiary and use a new name for the over-corp.

    • Re:cigs? (Score:3, Informative)

      by spacefrog ( 313816 )
      Huh?

      Philip Morris has been held in a holding company since 1985. PM is still a company.

      All they did was changed the name of their holding company, which owns things much larger then just the PM tobacco company.

      TV ads from Avis rental car ads, Century 21, or Howard Johnson do not say Cendant [cendant.com] at the end, do they? Do you find this deceptive as well?
    • When we all get RFID tags at birth then you can label them what they are - "Death"

      When you buy your first pack you get "Death 40's" (Because they are smooth and oh so sexy!) Then after your birthday you walk into the store and -

      "Gas, um, this Mt Dew, and a snickers and gimme that pack of Methol Death, what assholes, naming it that. My Mom said they used to have real names."

      "Yeah, I kinda miss Joe and his coupons in the pack. Here ya go buddy, want that on your...?"

      "Visa Uranium"

      "Ok, it will bill you
    • The cig company owns so much other "honest" food business now that they are probably working on a cigerarette exit strategy to insulate the other business from all the tabacco lawsuits...they they can just kill it when popular opinion gets too bad...

      It's a smart and honest business move. Seriously, I'm from Michigan who wants to raise cig taxes AGAIN to the highest in the country...think it would be a great move on PM's part to stop selling cigs [thru legal channels..state's gotta have their fingers in it

  • It's so obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by halivar ( 535827 ) <bfelger.gmail@com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:44PM (#9835708)
    It's a blatant attempt to prepare for reopening the BSD settlement. Just before their IBM/Novel souts fold, they will announce ownership of BSD and all BSD-related code (TCP/IP stack, anyone?).

    Won't matter, though; stock has lost its $5 support, and it's only a matter of time before the shutters close on them.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Won't matter, though; stock has lost its $5 support

      It's not always that logical (as much as I wish it was). SCO issues this USL release and suddenly the stock spikes up to $4.55 after opening at $4.11. WTF??? Then again, if people are willing to believe Michael Moore, half the population cannot be reasoned with.
      • by halivar ( 535827 ) <bfelger.gmail@com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:54PM (#9835863)
        I had not noticed the stock spike. That's bad news; they seem to be able to claw their way out of any hole. Fortunately, they didn't break $5, and that's a significant morale defeat for any bagholders. It's also a sign that investors are not hopeful.
        • by n4vu ( 563076 ) <slashdot@n4vu.com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:11PM (#9836076)
          Remember that not all stock buying is in anticipation of the stock going up; particularly in this case, it can just be buying to cover short positions.
          • Why would you want to cover your short position unless you expected the price to go up soon?

      • I wonder, what would people do if I stated facts, and those facts could not be attacked based on evidence.

        Why, the cowards would attack me, of course.

        Grab a copy of the 9/11 commission final report, and cross-reference whatever you think is false. Then make a point instead of doing asinine character assassination.
    • by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:56PM (#9835873) Journal
      • It's a blatant attempt to prepare for reopening the BSD settlement. Just before their IBM/Novel souts fold, they will announce ownership of BSD and all BSD-related code (TCP/IP stack, anyone?).
      Sadly while in more sane times your statement would sound more like paranoia I'm afraid that you're probably dead on the money. They seem quite intent on claiming ownership to anything and everything they can and litigating it to death.
      • Won't matter, though; stock has lost its $5 support, and it's only a matter of time before the shutters close on them.
      Cringely [pbs.org] predicted that SCO would collapse mid-year saying that this whole mess has been nothing but a scam to prop up the stock prices up. Unfortunately he predicts that we'll see more of this type of thing in the future. I suspect he's also correct.
      • I read the link... Cringely seems to be correct on many things.
        But how about this one:

        "5) The SCO debacle has created a crisis within the Linux community. They pretend that it hasn't, but it has. This will come to a head in 2004 with either the development of a new organizational structure for Linux or the start of its demise. Linux has to grow or die, and the direction it takes will be determined in 2004."

        I'm not really into these things, but are there really any signs that the "organizational str
          • I'm not really into these things, but are there really any signs that the "organizational structure for Linux" is changing in because of the "SCO debacle"? Sofar as I know nothing really changed, or am I mistaken?

          There are probably others who can provide more detailed info but I know that there's been some changes on the code-submittal front for the kernel (to verify ownership and create a trail in case of future lawsuits) and there's a group/company doing a complete code analysis and offering insuranc

    • by ksp ( 203038 )
      I think they may stay away from TCP/IP, after all it's in M$. They can't afford to go at M$ now. If they sabotage TCP/IP the entire world will just sink them quickly - perhaps even finally someone will buy them just to make them shut up.

      Another issue... Isn't iBCS related to .Net? And didn't OldSCO pick up the remains of iBCS? As you understand, I have only vague recollections about this but I recall some sort of trace iBCS -> SCO -> .Net...?
    • by k98sven ( 324383 )
      It's a blatant attempt to prepare for reopening the BSD settlement. Just before their IBM/Novel souts fold, they will announce ownership of BSD and all BSD-related code (TCP/IP stack, anyone?).

      Quite possible. Rather interesting thought, given that MS has used BSD code (finger, telnet, ftp utilities). I wonder if they'd want to support that kind of litigation.

      Personally, I think it'd be interesting to see that case re-opened. Bad for BSD, but likely SCO will have lost all credibility by then, so perhaps i
    • Won't matter, though; stock has lost its $5 support,

      Is there anyway to tell who is providing the price support? Obviously SCO has a stock buyback plan in place, and it's such a thinly traded stock that they can just buy 10000 shares a day and it still doesn't compare to their legal expenses. But is there any possibility that anyone else would want to provide support?

      MSFT probably wouldn't care about it. In all likelyhood they have given up the idea of using SCO as goons since they're incompetent.

      A mu
      • Is there anyway to tell who is providing the price support?

        It's my understanding (from reading the Yahoo! Finance boards, at least) that it's institutions holding the bag right now, such as Royce. For these guys, the difference between $4 and $0 is negligible in light of the fact that they bought at $12-$20 (IOW, they've already lost, and have not much mroe to lose). They'll ride it into the ground on the slimmest chance it'll turn a profit.

        Other than that, it's all shorts.

        Heck, a lot of the institution
  • How the blue part of SCO's logo looks like a chunk of Mickey Mouse's head... What a Mickey Mouse company.

  • by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:47PM (#9835748)
    Hey, this is not bad news at all... Unix System Laboratories is just an anagram for Tux Sorority Amiableness. So now it's both Linux friendly, but more importantly, friendly to friendly Linux co-eds!

    Well, that and Examinable? It's Sorry! Oust!

  • This will be off topic but how and why is Sco stock value keep riding Down then Up. As off now.. trade $4.30 but earlier at one point it was $4.03, WHY?!

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8& pr ev=/search%3Fq%3Dscox%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF -8&q=stocks:SCOX+
    • Re:SCO SCO SCOX.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:57PM (#9835893) Homepage
      As Nassim Taleb points out in his great book "Fooled by radnomness" [amazon.com] most of shortterm market movement is nothing but noise. Dont make the mistake and take it serioulsy.
    • Re:SCO SCO SCOX.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by cosmo7 ( 325616 )
      If you're trying to understand why a stock is moving you must look at both the price *and* the volume. Like many small cap stocks SCOX trades in low volume and the price can fluctuate without a great deal of significance.

      When hard news affecting the stock emerges you usually see higher volume trading and the price hardens. SCOX had held on to a $5 support level for some time but has now fallen to the next support level, $4. Someone, somewhere, is happy to buy SCOX at $4 but no more.
  • by H8X55 ( 650339 ) <{jason.r.thomas} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:47PM (#9835754) Homepage Journal
    Claria [slashdot.org] Explains It All.

    Somehow missed that one, myself (posted on a Saturday - that's why). I was wondering why I hadn't seen gator around much on the office ad-aware scans. Now claria, that's a name i've been seeing. don't think i like it any more.

    SCO is just coming to terms with exactly how much they are hated and trying to change horses in mid-stream. But it won't work. Subpeanas are still PITAs and it doesn't matter whose name is on the letterhead of the C&D.
  • CORRECTION (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:48PM (#9835763) Journal
    If the author had read the entire Groklaw article, toward the bottom she says:

    UPDATE: I missed something. This next one was registered in 1993 and cancelled in 2000. Here it is: ....

    Owner - (REGISTRANT) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 190 River Road Summit NEW JERSEY 07901


    So it wasn't abandoned in 1993, it expired perhaps in 2000. Big difference.
    • If the author had read the entire article, perhaps they did it before the update went on...
      • No, I read the article update last night, which is how I knew the article posting was incorrect. I went back and double checked. The author just got in a hurry and didn't finish, or forgot that part or something. Nice try tho ;)

        Like many slashdotters, I like to come here and discuss articles I have already seen on Groklaw and The Register a few days before...
  • Sorry Darl,

    You can change the name but you cant change the smell, and SCO, whadeva you call it [yahoo.com] stinks to high heavens.

  • by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:49PM (#9835777)
    ...that they should just change their name to "The Mos Eisley Group."

    'Cause you know, wretched hive and all that...

    • by screwballicus ( 313964 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:14PM (#9836111)
      And thus begin the endless debates on whether IBM or SCO shot first.

      In Imperial Mos Eisley, Rodian shoots you
      • And thus begin the endless debates on whether IBM or SCO shot first.

        SCO shot first, but the gun jammed. And it was very small caliber anyway. And on closer examination it appeared to be carved out of soft cheese of some sort.

        IBM has spent the last year carefully preparing to return 'fire', using its powerful orbiting battle station built entirely from defunct RMA'd hard drives.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:50PM (#9835792)
    ...For we are no longer the nights who say, "Ni!"
    We are now the nights who say, "Iki iki iki p'tang ZOOP boing"!
  • Counter-action (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:51PM (#9835801) Homepage
    The best way to derail SCO's attempt to register "Unix System Laboratories" (a trademark they're not currently using) would be for someone to demonstrate that they're already using that mark in trade. Of course X/Open, the owners of the UNIX® trademark, also ought to have something to say about it.
  • Why back SCO? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by myte ( 799564 )
    How long is it going to be before the SCO backers lose interest and drop them? All they have been doing lately is pumping out lawsuits in hopes that they'll win. They haven't produced anything of worth to the world lately. Dump them. It's pointless for SCO to continue. So, why back a pointless corporation?
  • by y2imm ( 700704 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:58PM (#9835898)
    An astute poster has noticed SCO cannot use UNIX System Laboratories without the expressed consent of the Open Group. Apparently it has not yet received such permission. Shot down in about a day, what a resource!
  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06.email@com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:00PM (#9835933)
    changed the name to Santa Claus Organization.

    Who wouldn't pay the licensing fee to Santa?

    Pay me $699 for the children.

  • by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:03PM (#9835969)
    They can change UNIXWare to BOB, and OpenServer to NewtonOS.

    Then they can change all their employee's first names to John, ala Buckaroo Bonzai. Darl kind of reminds me of Lord John Whorfin. "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!"

  • this kills me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:03PM (#9835972) Homepage
    Here SCO attacks open source as dangerously liable to include proprietary code, yet here they are [yahoo.com] with just about every new improvement to their product IS an open source project! Lets see, it now comes with:

    * Mozilla Web browser 1.6 adds new features including tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, and PDF support
    * Squid Web Proxy Cache 2.5STABLE5 with expanded authentication schemes, optimizes searching, SSL gatewaying, and more
    * Perl 5.8.4
    * Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31
    * OpenSSH 3.8p1
    * BIND 8.4.4
    • Don't you mean hybrid source?

      And why the older versions of all these things? Can I get a hey for Apache 2? Mozilla 1.7? Bind 9?

      It's like the PA strip: "Power of...shit!" "Form of...Obsolescence!" "Combine to form...a bunch of crap nobody cares about!"

      Oh wait, I see what they're hybridizing now...

  • Packard Bell. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) * on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:04PM (#9835985) Homepage
    Packard Bell did this. The original Packard Bell made television sets back in the 50s. When a computer entrepreneur wanted to start up in the mid-70s, he bought the name. It gave his computers instant respectability with those who remembered the old Packard Bell and it didn't hurt that the name also sounded like a cross between Hewlett Packard and Bell Telephone.

    I suspect SCO (originally Caldera) wants to find a new name since they've destroyed any vestiges of goodwill attached to the name SCO. They'll probably wait until after the lawsuits, quietly change names and then seek a buyer for whatever is left of their business. They might even bring in new management chosen especially for their ability to convincingly express dismay with the sins of their predecessors.

    • Re:Packard Bell. (Score:3, Informative)

      by b0r0din ( 304712 )
      It gave his computers instant respectability with those who remembered the old Packard Bell and it didn't hurt that the name also sounded like a cross between Hewlett Packard and Bell Telephone.

      Yes, and if I recall, Packard Bell then proceeded to make some of the worst, crappiest computers known to man.

      There won't be anything left of SCO in the end. In fact, are they even in the software business anymore? Do they even sell software? Do they innovate? Do they have people on their payroll who don't file la
    • by Spuds ( 8660 )
      I'm available to be the new management. I've been telling everyone I know that the Sco management team was smoking crack since this whole thing began. It would be nice to get paid to say it.
  • by rumblin'rabbit ( 711865 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:08PM (#9836023) Journal
    I know a lot of /.'s will read in all sorts of nefarious motives in this latest move. It could be, however, that SCO is just looking towards the day when they sell there Unix business. After all, they are not going to attract new clients while it's owned by SCO (small PR problem). The business is worth more if it were owned by someone else.

    In preparation for selling they might want to rebrand their Unix business from "SCO UnixWare" to something without the SCO name. "Unix Systems Laboratories" would do just fine.

    • Once they have separated their Unix related business off to Unix System Laboratories, they can then rename the remainder of the SCO business holdings as well. Perhaps "Microsoft Lackey" is available...
  • Wait... (Score:4, Funny)

    by zr-rifle ( 677585 ) <zedr.zedr@com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:19PM (#9836164) Homepage
    ...does this mean I need to start over again with the "Litigious bastards [unixsystem...tories.com]" thing?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:32PM (#9836342)
    Including the trademark "UNIX" which doesn't belong to them as part of a new trademark doesn't work. If it did, I'd register "Slashdot Toilet Paper" and "Coca-Cola Tampons" immediately. How about "Chevrolet Mouthwash" or "United Airlines Hemorrhoid Cream". Gee this is fun...
  • I live in the wrong country so I don't think that I can do it. Someone like Red Hat would do nicely (especially if the The Open Group group [opengroup.org] pitched in).
    • SCOX is in violation of their licensing agreement with open group. I'm guessing they will lose this one and may even lose the right to UNIXWARE.
      From sectiopn 4.1 of the agreement:

      4.1 Combination of Trademarks 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 approporate, to X/Open Company. X/Open Company may ask to review a proof
  • by Onimaru ( 773331 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:51PM (#9836632)

    From The Open Group's Website [unix.org]:

    SCO is licensed to use the registered trademark UNIX "on and in connection" with their products that have been certified by The Open Group, as are all other licensees.

    These are the ONLY circumstances in which a licensee may use the trademark UNIX on and in connection with it's products.

    This seems like a pretty blatant abuse of a trademark owned by someone else. I'm guessing that if they ever made good on their "intent to use" this designation they would be served by TOG in about 15 minutes, backed by the $5 PayPal donations of every geek on the planet Earth.

  • I guess ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by AhBeeDoi ( 686955 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:52PM (#9836646)
    AT&T Bell Laboratories was taken.
  • by benedict ( 9959 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:58PM (#9836743)
    Philip Morris -> Altria

    We're all supposed to think "altruism" and forget about their habit of peddling cancer sticks to young people.
  • by Pendersempai ( 625351 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @04:01PM (#9836786)
    Is there any reason at all to allow corporations to change their names?

    We have a whole body of law -- trademark law -- to prevent companies from confusing customers by imitating other companies. Why do we allow them to confuse customers by pretending not to be themselves?

    In recent memory, I can think of this one, the Gator to Claria switch, and Phillip Morris to Altria Group switch. Every one of them is a blatant attempt to shed bad PR and start fresh. But they EARNED the bad PR! Why can they legally drop a PR debt more easily than they can drop a financial debt?

    At the very least, why doesn't the FTC review all name changes and reject ones that appear to be motivated by negative PR?
  • by Vexler ( 127353 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @04:04PM (#9836830) Journal
    Someone earlier on another thread suggested that this move might be a prelude to their bringing the war to the BSDs (Free, Net, and Open). If Baystar manages to wring their $20 million out of SCO, then it's hard to see how SCO is going to get the cash they need to continue the fight. They may be able to re-register USL, but won't be able to do much with it. Any judge worth his/her salt is going to see that this is a different USL that had nothing to do with the old USL. All of this is of course *before* IBM (and anyone else interested) turns around and incinerates them in countersuits.
  • the fact that feces still stinks, no matter what you call it.
  • LINDOWS!!

    Microsoft can't touch dat!

  • USL? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lifebouy ( 115193 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @06:32PM (#9838393) Journal
    Is that UNIX Systems Laboratories or Un-Savory Lawyers?
  • by Dr.Dubious DDQ ( 11968 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @06:38PM (#9838452) Homepage

    As I recall, the much debated Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and OldSCO specified something to the effect of only including copyrights and trademarks that were "necessary" for the unix business that oldSCO bought from Novell.

    Is SCO now planning to claim that they "need" the copyrights to go with the "Unix System Labs" trademark in some bizarre argument?

  • by nyet ( 19118 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @06:50PM (#9838544) Homepage
    oh no you dont, Darl [groklaw.net]

    From 4.1 Combination of Trademarks 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 approporate, 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." ...

    "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."

  • The near worthless look for value everywhere.

    GTE/Vorizon purchased BBN and then did a commercial claiming they created the internet.

    Nothing new here. It is now 2004/07/29 just 30mi South of NYC and still no xDSL for my home, and the FCC think they are doing a great job, what a MF joke on US.

    OldHawk777
  • Scox has been calling themselves the "Owner of the UNIX operating system" for over a year. OpenGroup seems to be okay with it.

    I don't think I could make a soft drink called Pepsi-beverage without getting permission from Pepsi. I'm sure USL violates OpenGroup's trademark, but it doesn't seem like OpenGroups wants to do anything.
  • Why not? (Score:3, Funny)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @11:40PM (#9840616) Journal
    They own UNIX, they might as well own every trademark containing "UNIX".

    There is nothing wrong with what SCO is doing here.

    Why is this a story?

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...