Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Playing Name Games

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the they're-so-good-at-it dept.

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."

12 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. cigs? by mutewinter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about Philip Morris changing its name to Altria, and then running "cigs are bad" ads using the name Philip Morris?

  2. It's so obvious... by halivar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's so obvious... by halivar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:It's so obvious... by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Interesting
      • 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 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.
  3. Counter-action by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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/
  4. Re:SCO SCO SCOX.. by Lispy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. this kills me by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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); }
  6. Packard Bell. by Jaywalk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  7. Selling their Unix business? by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  8. What About The Open Group? by Onimaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From The Open Group's Website:

    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.

    --
    adam b.
  9. Corporate name-changes by Pendersempai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  10. Where Is The Cash for the Fight Ahead??? by Vexler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.