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."

62 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Obsolete names for sale! by Danborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I should register "Osbourne Computer" or "Altair" or something equally cool, geeky and dead.

    1. Re:Obsolete names for sale! by swschrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?
    2. Re:Obsolete names for sale! by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think "Wang" would be a more appropriate name for them.

    3. Re:Obsolete names for sale! by erick99 · · Score: 3, Informative
      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

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    4. Re:Obsolete names for sale! by erick99 · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    5. Re:Obsolete names for sale! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh, I remember back in the late 70s-early 80s Wang was having a contest for user comments for their wordprocessor that could be put on a T-shirt. Winner would receive a new Wang wordprocessor.

      I entered:

      I write with my Wang!

      For some reason, I didn't win.

      --ern

    6. Re:Obsolete names for sale! by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Funny

      On that note, did you know that Eve was the very first computer operator?

      She really was!

      She had an Apple in one hand and a Wang in the other!

      ba da bing!

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  2. The name game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.

  3. You can't sue us, IBM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Your lawsuit is against SCO. But we're UNIX System Labratories.

    1. Re:You can't sue us, IBM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... and that licensing fee you paid SCO doesn't cover *OUR* intellectual property, either!

  4. Name game by ViolentGreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the name game is more closely related to the original Napster vs the current Napster then the Claria/Gator bs.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  5. 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?

    1. Re:cigs? by spacefrog · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 at the end, do they? Do you find this deceptive as well?

  6. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:It's so obvious... by n4vu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:It's so obvious... by tijnbraun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 structure for Linux" is changing in because of the "SCO debacle"? Sofar as I know nothing really changed, or am I mistaken?

      furthermore aren't prediction 5 and 6 a bit contradictory.
      Cingely says (prediction 6): "This was never more than a stock scam"...
      If so than why the "or the start of its demise"?

    6. Re:It's so obvious... by ksp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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...?

      --
      What is the sound of one hand clapping?
      cat /dev/null > /dev/audio
    7. Re:It's so obvious... by k98sven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 it wouldn't be so bad. After all, the judge in the previous suit not only found that AT&T was likely guilty of copyright infringement themselves, but also that Unix copyrights were unenforceable.

      By re-opening the case, they face a very serious risk of having that finding put into a ruling. And *poof* all the ancient Unices are suddenly in the public domain.

      Obviously that'd be bad for SCO, but who knows? After all, it's obvious they're not starting lawsuits to win, but to generate FUD.

    8. Re:It's so obvious... by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 mutual fund or two might want to keep their position looking good, but it's hard to imagine that any fund manager holding SCOX would have NOT read groklaw by now and closed or hedged their position by now.

      Or are there just a bunch of day traders buying at 4.00 and selling at 4.20 playing off the occasional short squeeze.

      It's actually quite puzzling that this stock has any value at all.

    9. Re:It's so obvious... by k98sven · · Score: 2, Informative

      All their ancient Unices are already public domain.

      In practice, yes. In legal theory, no.
      USL claimed copyright on the files, although the court indicated they'd be found invalid before the settlement was made. But without an actual ruling to that extent, one shouldn't assume so, given the nature of copyright law.

      Caldera open-sourced them later. Which is a decision made on the premise of them actually owning copyright. (it's always worth repeating public domain = without any copyright, open source=copyrighted with a liberal license. Not the same thing at all.)

      But there is no reason to sue for infringement, because that'd likely mean the copyrights would be found invalid. And even if not, given that the ancient unices have been released as open-source and have no commercial value, the damages would probably be lower than the attorneys' fees.

      So for every practical purpose, it's public domain. But not on paper.

  7. Don't be so sad! by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Don't be so sad! by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's gotta be a way to fit the word labia in there, as we know those SCO bastards are all pussies.

      Sorry to Tux, labia nemesis

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  8. Slashlink on Claria/ Gator by H8X55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  9. CORRECTION by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  10. I'm thinking... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that they should just change their name to "The Mos Eisley Group."

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

    1. Re:I'm thinking... by screwballicus · · Score: 3, Funny

      And thus begin the endless debates on whether IBM or SCO shot first.

      In Imperial Mos Eisley, Rodian shoots you

  11. Oblig. Monty Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...For we are no longer the nights who say, "Ni!"
    We are now the nights who say, "Iki iki iki p'tang ZOOP boing"!

  12. 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/
  13. Why back SCO? by myte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why back SCO? by neurojab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >So, why back a pointless corporation?

      Most of the backers are hedge funds.
      A hedge fund, being defined by extremely risky investments, can afford to buy a few lottery tickets.

  14. 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.

  15. Groklaw to the rescue...again by y2imm · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  16. Should have kept the initials, but ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Funny
    changed the name to Santa Claus Organization.

    Who wouldn't pay the licensing fee to Santa?

    Pay me $699 for the children.

  17. Re:SCO SCO SCOX.. by cosmo7 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  18. Product name changes, too by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!"

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  19. 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); }
    1. Re:this kills me by Onimaru · · Score: 2, Funny

      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...

      --
      adam b.
  20. 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. =====
    1. Re:Packard Bell. by b0r0din · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 lawsuits? One might question whether or not some other law firm named SCO could sue for trademark violation as SCO doesn't seem to do anything but litigate nowadays.

    2. Re:Packard Bell. by Spuds · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  21. 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.

  22. Wait... by zr-rifle · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...does this mean I need to start over again with the "Litigious bastards" thing?

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  23. Re:A Rose by any other Name... by Misch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Either way, it's probably not getting back into major league baseball.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  24. BRRTTT!! Can't use somebody else's trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  25. SOMEBODY needs to file a notice of objection by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 pitched in).

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:SOMEBODY needs to file a notice of objection by BootSpooge · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 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.
      From a post by Quartermaster on Groklaw.

  26. On a Night Like This... by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Funny
    How could you get
    "Iki iki iki p'tang ZOOP boing"! right (I'm guessing it's right)
    and misspell Knights as nights?

    Did you cut and paste this from somehwere (if so where?)
    Or did you do it from memory?

    --
    Letter To Iran
  27. 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.
  28. I guess ... by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 3, Funny

    AT&T Bell Laboratories was taken.

  29. my favorite name change by benedict · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."
  30. 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?

  31. 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.

  32. Next name for SCO... by theendlessnow · · Score: 2, Funny
    LINDOWS!!

    Microsoft can't touch dat!

  33. USL? by lifebouy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that UNIX Systems Laboratories or Un-Savory Lawyers?

    --
    Drop me a line at:
    Key ID: 0x54D1D809
  34. Is this to try to show "need" for the copyrights? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
  35. SCO will lose rights to UNIXWARE trademark by nyet · · Score: 2, Informative

    oh no you dont, Darl

    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."

  36. Nah, think bigger. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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..."

    "Yeah, I know when I hit the door."

    ....a few minutes pass...

    "Hey um, when I was in here I asked for Death 40's - these are 39's."

    "Yeah, your birthday was last year right?"

    "Yeah, but..."

    "No, you got the right pack, the paper display checks your Imclone RFID"

    ...

    "Oh"


    Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    1. Re:Nah, think bigger. by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've never heard of the Death Tobacco Company?

  37. Why not? by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?