Slashdot Mirror
SCO Playing Name Games
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."
is Whirlwind still availiable? good name for a game console, don't you think?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
How about Philip Morris changing its name to Altria, and then running "cigs are bad" ads using the name Philip Morris?
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.
Claria 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.
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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?
As Nassim Taleb points out in his great book "Fooled by radnomness" most of shortterm market movement is nothing but noise. Dont make the mistake and take it serioulsy.
Here SCO attacks open source as dangerously liable to include proprietary code, yet here they are 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
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
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.
With enough legal weaseling, I can think of several ways that it could be.
...And for gods sakes, someone point out to me why this would not be legal. I don't want to give McBride and co. an idea.
I.e. spin off a unrelated company, owned by Darl McBride's Henchman.
Sell off all of SCO's IP for a pittance - say, $1.
Bring up that McBride and the SCO stock owners coincidentally own the -exact- amount of stock in the new company as they did in SCO.
Voila!
From The Open Group's Website:
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.
adam b.
Philip Morris -> Altria
We're all supposed to think "altruism" and forget about their habit of peddling cancer sticks to young people.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
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?
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.