SCO versus Linux

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under SCO against Linux the be 2003 to 2010 led lawsuits SCO Group against IBM and other companies understand where it came to the accusation that source , supposedly own the rights to the SCO, illegally in the Linux - kernel had been copied. However, the courts found that SCO had never - as claimed - acquired the copyright to Unix and ultimately dismissed the claims as unfounded, whereupon SCO appealed. In addition, none of the alleged Unix plagiarism could be found in the Linux source code. As a result, the SCO Group went into bankruptcy.

In April 2011, the SCO Group sold all resources to UnXis, Inc. (which later took the name Xinuos ). The SCO Group, Inc., retaining only the due process rights against IBM and Novell and was in TSG Group, Inc. renamed. In August 2012, TSG Group, Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection to be liquidated ( to Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code ), as there was no reasonable chance of restoring business activity. In June 2013, Judge David Nuffer granted SCO's motion to resume the proceedings that had been interrupted to protect creditors. At the end of 2017, an appellate court ruled that embezzlement claims brought forward by SCO could be pursued further. As of November 2019, the proceedings are still pending.

background

The Linux operating system, which has been popular since the early 1990s, is basically free software and can be changed and passed on by anyone. As it became more widespread, it was supported by more and more companies, culminating in an announcement by IBM that it would invest around one billion dollars in Linux.

IBM, which has its own Unix called AIX in its portfolio , reduced its commitment to its own operating system in favor of Linux. A short time later, the first voices from the SCO camp were loud, questioning whether Linux could develop on its own or whether it had not included copyrighted source code that should have been licensed.

Almost all Linux-based operating systems use the GNU Core Utilities from the GNU operating system in addition to the Linux kernel . GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix . The name was chosen because the operating system was supposed to be Unix, but differs from Unix in that it is free software and does not contain any Unix source code . The Free Software Foundation , which administers the GNU project , were confident that they could prove the copyright to GNU . After SCO had researched copyright infringements in GNU and the Linux kernel, the company management decided to only attack the Linux kernel legally.

The resulting events are now listed below.

Chronological order of events

Spring 2003

March 2003 - SCO versus IBM
  • The SCO Group is suing IBM for infringement of alleged rights SCO wants to own in Unix, claiming $ 1 billion in damages, alleging that the SMP (multiprocessor code) code in Linux infringes SCO's copyrights . Most of this code, however, came from kernel developers working at Red Hat and Intel . No claims have been made against the employers of these developers. IBM rejected the claim, arguing that SCO was trying to hinder and slow down the work of the open source community.
  • Tarantella , the former " S anta C ruz O peration (SCO)" and former owner of the Unix business, which was sold to Caldera / SCO, did not participate in this action. Furthermore, SCO announced that the lawsuit for infringement of Unix copyrights would also be extended to various Linux distributors .
May 2003 - Warning against SCO
  • In Germany, following a warning from LinuxTag eV before the Bremen regional court, there is an injunction against the company , according to which SCO is not allowed to repeat the claim. Otherwise there is a threat of a fine of € 250,000.
June 16, 2003 - SCO revokes IBM's rights to code in AIX
  • By using code from AIX with the aim of destroying Unix, IBM misused SCO's source code and violated the agreement with SCO. For this reason, SCO would withdraw all rights to the use of source code based on the Unix System V from IBM.

Summer 2003

August 1, 2003 - Eben Moglen rejects allegations
  • Eben Moglen , professor of law and legal history at Columbia Law School, and advisor to the Free Software Foundation , denies SCO's allegations. The document states that SCO has not yet filed a lawsuit against users or published any information about which code may violate SCO's rights.
Aug 5, 2003 - SCO presents awards / Red Hat goes to court
  • SCO presents the prices for the so-called Intellectual Property License for Linux. A server - license to 15 October $ 699 (after 1,399 US dollars) per processor, a desktop system cost US $ 199th Evidence for the claim that code from the Unix - the kernel has migrated to Linux, SCO appealed against still not available.
  • Red Hat , a Linux distributor , is taking legal action against SCO's allegation that Red Hat has distributed products that contain proprietary Unix source code. According to Mark Webbing, Red Hat's attorney, this move is intended to prevent SCO from making further false claims against Red Hat Linux.
Aug 7, 2003 - IBM files lawsuit
  • IBM defends itself and files a lawsuit against SCO. SCO is said to have violated the GNU General Public License (GPL) and violated four IBM patents . It is also said that SCO itself sold Linux, which is under the GPL, and thus given up copyrights to Linux code.
Aug 8, 2003 - Response from SCO / Bruce Peren's warning
  • SCO responds to IBM's complaint that it is just an attempt to divert attention from IBM's flawed Linux business model, and calls on IBM to resolve the issues and abandon the GPL. SCO is surprised by the patent charge because IBM never made any claims.
  • The open source activist Bruce Perens warns at LinuxWorld in San Francisco about the legal consequences that arise for companies that accept the Linux license from SCO. A greater danger than SCO, however , would be software patents , as they are about to be adopted in Europe.
August 11, 2003 - Aduvas software / Linux license purchased / GCC cancels support
  • According to software manufacturer Aduva, in which Intel and IBM are among the main investors, the latest version of the developer software Onstage contains a function that is supposed to detect and remove the controversial SCO code in Red Hat or SuSE distributions. The question arises as to how Aduva managed to replace the SMP system in the kernel, although SCO has not even presented the controversial lines of code to the public.
  • SCO publishes a press release, according to which one of the 500 largest corporations should have bought one of the Linux licenses. However, SCO does not disclose which company it is.
  • The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is sending a patch to GCC developer Mark Mitchell, which contains an informational text threatening to cut support for SCO's software in the coming versions.
August 13, 2003 - SCO announces Sequent
  • SCO terminates the contract through which the IBM subsidiary Sequent was allowed to manufacture and sell software derived from Unix System V, on the grounds that this code was also used in Linux contrary to the agreement.
August 14, 2003 - GPL reportedly invalid
  • SCO's chief attorney, Mark Heise, declares that the GNU General Public License (GPL) is invalid. The GPL is intended to contradict US-American law on copyright, according to which software buyers are only allowed to make a backup copy. This would invalidate the GPL.
August 15, 2003 - According to OSDL, there are no threats to Linux users
  • The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) will publish a paper with questions and answers on the legal dispute. Its author, Lawrence Rosen, is the legal advisor of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and an expert on technology and copyright law. He confirms that SCO can demand money from Linux users. But he also says that this does not mean that you have to pay for it.
August 18, 2003 - Bill Gates speaks up / Eben Moglen attacks
  • During a conference with analysts, Bill Gates stated that Linux should not be a new operating system, but a UNIX derivative. He thinks it is impossible that Linux does not contain source code from Unix or from Microsoft. Only Microsoft should be able to offer real innovations for a stable and secure system.
  • The SCO attorney Mark Heise had claimed to the Wall Street Journal that the GNU GPL, which also includes Linux, is invalid because it violates US federal law (see August 14). Eben Moglen calls this a reckless argument and unprofessional nonsense. This would not only invalidate the GPL, but also any other open source license such as Apache, BSD, LGPL. But Microsoft's shared source license and the company's methods of distributing the Windows operating system would also violate the law.
August 19, 2003 - SCO unveils allegedly stolen source code
  • Allegedly stolen code is demonstrated at the SCO Forum. The audience was shown a fragment of UNIX code and Linux code that contained the same comments. The code comes from the file sys / sys / malloc.c from Unix Version 3 and is said to have been written as early as 1973 by Dennis M. Ritchie or Ken Thompson , who were then working at AT&T. It has already been placed under the BSD license several times . According to Bruce Perens, the first publication under a non-disclosure agreement was even said to have taken place in 1977. The Unix Systems Labs (ATT) published the position in 1979 under a BSD-like license. The code has also been approved by Caldera International. Bill Broderic, the director of license services, signed a license that allows the sources of Unix releases V1-7 and 32V to be modified and distributed in binary form without the need for license fees to Caldera.
August 20, 2003 - Samba Open Letter
  • The developers of Samba describe the approach of SCO as hypocrisy, after insults and attacks against open source on the SCO forum the new version of the SCO openserver Legend was presented. It should support Java and use the open source program Samba, which is under the GPL, to connect to Windows computers.
  • SCO declares to Computer Business Review its intention to take action against a company that uses AIX , Dynix and Linux to make an example .
August 21, 2003 - Linus Torvalds speaks up
  • According to Linus Torvalds' assessment , the code presented shows only an uninteresting algorithm for memory management, which is around 30 years old, was written by Ken Thompson and comes from the original UNIX source code and BSD . Furthermore, because of its ugliness , the code was removed from the Linux kernel by SCO before it was released. He advocates the efforts of the scene to gain insight into the objectionable sources from SCO so that the legally questionable code fragments can be removed.
August 28, 2003 - SCO has to pay
  • The Munich District Court I imposed a fine of 10,000 euros on the SCO Group GmbH and accused the company of negligent behavior in the operation of the company's website. After the injunction, the claim was still to be read that end users who use the Linux software can be held liable for breaches of SCO's intellectual property . If the SCO Group does not pay, Managing Director Hans Bayer threatens to be detained for 10 days.
September 1, 2003 - SCO does not complain / call for protest
  • According to reports from Australian media, the American company SCO is not planning to sue any other companies for license violations.
  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls on Linux users to protest against SCO for extortion in writing to the representatives of the US Congress .
September 12, 2003 - Answer from Linus Torvalds
  • Linus Torvalds answered the open letter from SCO boss Darl McBride and expressed his joy that SCO, like the Linux developers, believes that open source [is] stable and legal . However, he turns down business advice from a company that appears to have squandered all of its Linux IPO money and is playing the lottery under the US legal system . He also rejects negotiations with McBride as there is still no evidence to support the SCO's claims.

Fall 2003

September 24, 2003 - HP protects Linux users
  • The company wants to protect users of HP devices with a support contract from legal disputes by SCO and to cover the costs of defense.
September 27, 2003 - IBM files next lawsuit against SCO
  • IBM Sues SCO for Linux Copyright Infringement. Since SCO Linux continues to sell even after violating the GPL (by demanding license fees), the company is violating the copyright.
October 28, 2003 - SCO says: GPL violates US constitution
  • In the opinion of SCO, the free Linux operating system is a "vehicle for the destruction of proprietary operating system software."

Winter 2003/2004

January 26, 2004 - The Mydoom worm is registered
  • He is targeting a DoS attack against SCO. SCO claims the worm came from open source and was used to blackmail the company.
February 18, 2004 - Out of court settlement
  • A settlement is concluded between Univention and SCO, which forbids SCO under threat of punishment from making the assertion in Germany that Linux contains SCO's intellectual property.
March 3, 2004 - SCO sues AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler
  • SCO files a lawsuit against a major Linux user. Instead of, as expected, taking a size out of the IT industry, the largest auto parts supplier in the USA, AutoZone, is faced with the lawsuit by the SCO.
  • SCO files a lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler. In 1996 DaimlerChrysler licensed UNIX systems from the SCO predecessor AT&T for car development. SCO accuses DaimlerChrysler of not having proven that the software contracts were kept. According to the license agreement, DaimlerChrysler would have had to provide evidence of contractual use at SCO's request.

Spring 2004

May 7, 2004 - Royal Bank of Canada exits
  • The investor Royal Bank of Canada is withdrawing from the investment in SCO. This means that one of the two major investors has left the investment in the now rather ailing SCO. Baystar Capital thus becomes the determining investor.
June 2, 2004 - Baystar Capital also exits
  • The venture capitalist Baystar Capital announces that it is withdrawing from the investment SCO. This means that SCO's most important investor, who had previously pushed the most for the direct continuation of the process, is leaving SCO.

Summer 2004

July 16, 2004 - AutoZone trial adjourned
  • The lawsuit against the American auto parts dealer AutoZone will be suspended by the competent judge until the end of the IBM process if SCO cannot prove that this is extremely damaging to business. It is also announced that Gregory Blepp, who had previously been a consultant in the licensing business, has left the company and taken a new job at another company.

Winter 2004/2005

December 27, 2004 - The lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler is dismissed
  • The lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler is dismissed by the competent judge. However, SCO has the option to file the lawsuit again.
January 20, 2005 - SCO needs more material
  • SCO is asking for more code from IBM to look through. The examining magistrate Brooke Wells complies with the demand and has ordered that IBM must transfer the code of all versions of AIX and Dynix produced to SCO . However, a request to view all version control systems will be rejected for the time being.
January 24, 2005 - DaimlerChrysler is out
  • The court of appeal in the process between SCO and DaimlerChrysler has dropped the lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler.
January 26, 2005 - IBM wants more material too
  • IBM is also requesting insight into SCO's extensive code inventory. SCO finds this demand unreasonable, but the judge allows her.
February 3, 2005 - IBM takes HP and Intel to the stand
  • IBM wants to learn from Hewlett Packard and Intel what role SCO played in porting Unix to the then so-called Merced processor (later Itanium ).
March 3, 2005 - SCO wants more insight from IBM
  • SCO requires more insight into IBM's hardware design plans. The aim is to infer changes in the software design from changes in the hardware design . In this application, SCO takes up the thesis that has since been dropped that IBM copied tons of lines of code in Linux. Likewise, SCO accuses IBM that IBM broke into SCO's servers in order to adopt Linux source code that was only intended for SCO customers.
March 4, 2005 - Accounting problems at Baystar
  • Due to an accounting hiccup, the 2004 annual report has been delayed for the US regulatory authority SEC . As a result, SCO's stock was changed from the ticker symbol SCOX to SCOXE, which indicates that the stock is under threat of delisting.
March 12, 2005 - Ralph Yarro is the new majority owner of SCO
  • A dispute over embezzlement of funds between the Canopy Group and Ralph Yarro, among others, ensures that all SCO shares of Canopy Group go to Ralph Yarro, who is thus the new majority shareholder of SCO.
March 15, 2005 - GPL opponent brings product with a lot of free software
  • SCO, which invalidated the GPL , is releasing a new server product that has a wide range of free software. SCO is thus pursuing a two-pronged approach in which the license, under which its own software product is partially under, is declared invalid.

Spring 2005

April 14, 2005 - Bad numbers from SCO
  • A presentation of the quarterly figures from SCO makes it clear that the company's business is bad. Revenue fell from $ 11.4 million last year to $ 8.9 million. The losses have expanded and now add up to $ 2.96 million. In comparison, SCO had reported losses of 2.49 million US dollars in the previous year.
  • As part of a conference call, SCO boss Darl McBride attacks the information site Groklaw heavily, and makes the claim that Pamela Jones, the operator of the site, is a fake identity. He announces that SCO will investigate and announce who are supposed to be the masterminds.
April 20, 2005 - SCO escapes delisting
  • SCO announces in a declaration that all missing documents for the annual report are now available to the supervisory authority. This means that the SCO share will be used again under the symbol SCOX.
April 22, 2005 - IBM has less data to share
  • Coroner Wells has granted a protest from IBM that it would be asking too much if IBM had to release data on all 3,000 developers. According to the amended regulation, IBM now only has to publish notes and remarks as well as the white papers of the 100 most important developers. For further information, SCO had to provide more detailed reasons.
May 6, 2005 - IBM delivers data
  • At IBM, more than 400 employees have compiled the documents requested by SCO and made them available to SCO in a period of more than 4,700 hours. SCO has thus received over 80 GB of source code that SCO employees can now search.
May 10, 2005 - SCO attacks Groklaw
  • SCO spokesman Blake Stowell announces that his company will soon publish details of the announced research around Groklaw. Groklaw is therefore not an objective news site, but only directed against SCO.
June 2, 2005 - New quarterly figures from SCO
  • At the presentation of the quarterly figures, SCO announced that the business with Linux licenses was increasing slightly. Income was $ 30,000 compared to $ 11,000 last year. In contrast, SCO admits that the profits from income with the UnixWare and OpenServer offers have been lower. While in the same quarter of the previous year it had earned $ 8,415,000, this quarter it is only $ 7,838,000. This results in a quarterly balance sheet with a loss of 1.96 million US dollars. In the same period last year it was $ 14.7 million.
  • When presenting the quarterly figures, SCO reports a profit of $ 779,100, which comes from the sale of Trolltech shares. This sale marks the last connection between the Norwegian open source developer and SCO.
  • During a conference call on the quarterly figures, SCO announces that the lawsuit against Autozone will probably be dropped because Autozone no longer uses the offending code by switching to Red Hat Linux.

Summer 2005

June 29, 2005 - Evidence in the Novell v SCO trial
  • The taking of evidence has begun in the process over the rights to the UNIX code between Novell and SCO. The responsible judge Dale Kimball had previously rejected Novell's application on Monday to immediately discontinue the proceedings with reference to the 1995 sales contract. The reason for the rejection was that the taking of evidence was the right place for such arguments and not a motion to close the proceedings.
July 5, 2005 - SCO's motion for third line of action is dismissed
  • The responsible judge Dale Kimball has rejected the attempt by SCO to introduce a third line of action against IBM. This means that SCO's attempt to interpret the use of AIX in the so-called Monterey project as a license breach has failed. The justification for the application is largely based on the argumentation of IBM, according to which SCO knew about this mission and supported it with several explanations. Thus, in Kimball's opinion, the motion was only an attempt to further delay the proceedings.
  • Furthermore, Kimball has set the date for the main proceedings on February 26, 2007. This means that all preliminary examinations and submissions must be completed by March 17, 2006.
July 8, 2005 - SCO sees victory in defeat / Baystar dissolved
  • In the publication of July 5th, SCO sees a victory despite an obvious defeat, because the IBM boss Samuel J. Palmisano has to testify in New York, which IBM had so far strictly refused to do. The judge approved the request, but shortened the session time for the questioning from 7 to 4 hours.
  • SCO's stock continues to fall as venture capitalist Baystar, which still owns a large stake in SCO, has dissolved. However, parts of these blocks of shares may only be sold in tranches.
July 15, 2005 - Has SCO never found any code breaches?
  • In the course of preliminary investigations, documents have been published that place a heavy burden on SCO. An email from 2002 shows that the witness Michael Davidson knew early on that there was no SCO code to be found in Linux. The email published on Groklaw was forwarded to Darl McBride for information; it is not known whether he really read it. The content of the e-mail shows that the outside observer Bob Schwartz was specifically commissioned to identify code in Linux that was questionable under copyright law. The work was unsuccessful, however, no code could be found that is under SCO licenses. This means that Darl McBride runs the risk that, if the e-mail ever reached him, he would knowingly make false claims, which would have consequences for the lawsuit against IBM.
July 30, 2005 - Novell sues SCO.
  • In a counterclaim, Novell accuses SCO of having twice broken a contract to sell UnixWare. Novell also accuses SCO of defamation and defamation because the company is illegally claiming the copyrights of Unix. SCO had raised the same allegations against Novell in a lawsuit last year that Novell threw off.

Fall 2005

November 11, 2005 - Novell preliminary proceedings against SCO are emerging.
  • This procedure, directed by examining magistrate David Nuffer, cannot be delayed by SCO, as no source code has to be viewed. Should the process be successful for Novell, the SCO lawsuit against IBM would be invalid. At the same time, SCO is demanding that IBM hand over all developments on the (nonexistent) Linux kernel 2.7.

Winter 2005/2006

January 6, 2006 - New allegations by SCO against Linux distribution.
  • SCO raises allegations against the competitor Suse Linux . The distribution of Suse Linux should contain code from SCO. Observers believe that SCO is trying to use this strategy to delay the proceedings against Novell. This could prove to be a boomerang in the context of United Linux , in the development of which the SCO predecessor Caldera was involved.

Winter 2006/2007

January 19, 2007 - Another setback for SCO
  • SCO has to take another defeat. The final allegation was that IBM had destroyed the alleged evidence of intellectual property infringement, making it impossible for SCO to provide evidence. However, the court did not accept this accusation from the representatives. The allegations that there is SCO source code in Linux are becoming more and more implausible, and according to Novell SCO is already close to bankruptcy .

Spring 2007

April 24, 2007 - Novell can prove that the copyright was not sold to Unix
  • Novell can prove with documents that the copyright was deliberately not sold to Unix in order to have security in the event that the then SCO goes bankrupt. This means that the SCO's action based on the testimony of the lawyers and the documents available is practically irrelevant.

Summer 2007

July 19, 2007 - SCO loses a multi-year legal battle against Linux supporters
  • The 29th civil senate of the Munich Higher Regional Court rejects a complaint by The SCO Group GmbH against the Linux supporter Andreas Kuckartz in the second instance. Andreas Kuckartz may therefore publicly and also with business partners of The SCO Group GmbH u. a. express the suspicion that SCO is committing crimes such as price manipulation and process fraud.
Aug 10, 2007 - SCO loses
  • Since Novell never sold the rights to UNIX to SCO and SCO only acquired a license to use it, a court has now come to the conclusion that SCO's lawsuit is devoid of purpose and Novell continues to own the rights to UNIX.
August 31, 2007 - SCO appeals
  • In SCO's view, the process has not been fully reviewed by the legal system. For this reason, SCO has appealed the judgment.
September 15, 2007 - SCO is insolvent
  • The software company SCO is insolvent. The company announced on September 14, 2007 in Lindon, Utah County, in the US state of Utah. Bankruptcy protection is sought under Chapter 11 , a section of US bankruptcy law.

Fall 2007

October 8, 2007 - Novell files for suspension of SCO Group's bankruptcy proceedings
  • Novell is filing for bankruptcy proceedings against SCO to be discontinued in the Delaware bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy protection is also to be lifted so that the appeal process between SCO and Novell can continue.
November 28, 2007 - The process with Novell continues
  • The process for the rights to UNIX and the outstanding license payments from SCO to Novell continued, which came to a standstill due to the impending bankruptcy. As it was not clear which UNIX rights SCO actually had, the process must be continued in order to bring the bankruptcy proceedings to a conclusion.

Winter 2007/2008

December 27, 2007 - SCO is finally banned from trading on the stock exchange
  • After the SCO-Group filed for bankruptcy in September 2007, the NASDAQ has now finally excluded the SCO-Group from trading on the stock exchange.

Spring 2008

April 3, 2008 - SCO presents a new business plan
  • The SCO Group, which is subject to US bankruptcy law, presents a business model that provides for a separation of development / production from the previous SCO Group. Thus, the lawsuits filed so far are to remain with the SCO Group and the productive activities are to be bundled in an independent and thus independent company.
April 30, 2008 - Novell wants 19.9 million from SCO
  • According to Novell, this sum results from licensing deals between SCO and Microsoft, Sun and other companies and is therefore to be paid by SCO to Novell.
June 19, 2008 - More time for SCO
  • The SCO Group does not have to present its reorganization plans until the court has passed a judgment in the dispute about the amount that SCO has to pay to Novell.

Summer 2008

July 17, 2008 - SCO has to pay
  • The competent court has ordered the SCO Group to pay Novell royalties US $ 2,547,817.

Fall 2008

September 26, 2008 - SCO vs. Autozone is to be continued
  • Following a submission by SCO, the court in Las Vegas lifts the stay of the proceedings, which began with a lawsuit by SCO against Autozone in March 2004, on December 31, 2008 and thus enables the proceedings to be continued from January 2009.
November 20, 2008 - Novell wins appeal process against SCO
  • As a result of the completed proceedings, it is certain that Novell did not sell the copyright rights to UNIX when it sold the UNIX development to SCO. This means that Novell is entitled to a share of the income that SCO generated in its Unix licensing business.
November 25, 2008 - SCO appeals
  • The software company SCO is appealing the final court ruling that was announced in the process between SCO and Novell over the rights to Unix.

Winter 2008/2009

Jan 2, 2009 - SCO missed deadline
  • The software company SCO fails to present the business plan required by the bankruptcy court for the reorganization and the claims of the creditors.

Spring 2009

May 8, 2009 - SCO is about to end
  • The responsible bankruptcy regulator applies for the protection of creditors to be lifted in order to distribute the remaining assets to the creditors. The reason given by the bankruptcy regulator is that there is no reasonable prospect that the SCO Group will be able to guarantee orderly and debt-free business operations.
June 16, 2009 - SCO presents new investor
  • Literally at the last minute, the SCO Group presents a new investor who wants to get in with fresh capital so that all the claims of the creditors can be met.

Summer 2009

August 6, 2009 - Bankruptcy trustee takes over SCO
  • After the judgment of the bankruptcy court, the previous SCO management will be replaced and an appointed bankruptcy administrator will continue the business of the SCO Group.
August 25, 2009 - Resumption of the UNIX copyright dispute
  • The appeals court confirmed that the SCO Group has to pay $ 2.5 million in license fees to Novell. However, the question of whether a sale of the Unix distribution rights from Novell to SCO also includes the copyright to Unix should be renegotiated.
Aug 26, 2009 - Attorney appointed as bankruptcy trustee for SCO

Fall 2009

October 16, 2009 - SCO bankruptcy trustee dismisses SCO boss Darl McBride

Spring 2010

March 30, 2010 - A jury declares Novell, not SCO, the holder of UNIX copyright.
April 28, 2010 - SCO calls for reversal of judgment or new trial
  • SCO declares that the jury misunderstood the copyright issue raised by the Novell contract and as a result calls on the judges to overturn the judgment or, alternatively, to initiate new lawsuits.
June 10, 2010 - Novell wins, case closed
  • Federal Judge Jack Stewart has denied SCO's petition to open a new lawsuit. The previous decision of the jury is correct and understandable, according to which Novell is the owner of the UNIX copyright. The case is closed, according to Judge Jack Stewart.

Summer 2011

August 31, 2011 - The real end of the end
  • The 10th federal court in Utah at SCO's headquarters upheld the June 10, 2010 judgment. SCO would have the opportunity to appeal, but unlikely according to Groklaw.

spring 2013

June 17, 2013 - Retrial petition against IBM
  • The US Federal District Court in Utah has granted a retrial by SCO in relation to the 2007 trial against IBM. According to Groklaw, there are still two claims to be negotiated, which should continue to exist even without the rights to UNIX. IBM has the option of an objection in order to achieve a shortened procedure.

Winter 2016

February 5, 2016 - stage win for IBM
  • The judge David Nuffer has given IBM right in a first judgment. In the joint Monterey project by IBM and SCO, both companies worked at their own risk and interests.

Fall 2017

October 30, 2017 - Retrial against IBM
  • In the 10th Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, an appeal by SCO was partially upheld and the case was referred back to Judge Nuffer. It should be clarified whether IBM published a fake version in the Monterey project and thus fraudulently deceived SCO.

Web links

swell

  1. ↑ a b The SCO Group Files Chapter 11 to Protect Assets as It Addresses Potential Financial and Legal Challenges ( Memento from September 3, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  2. ↑ UnXis Completes Purchase of SCO UNIX Assets. UnXis, April 11, 2011, archived from the original on November 14, 2011 .;
  3. ↑ SCO Files for Chapter 7: "There is no reasonable chance of 'rehabilitation". In: Groklaw . August 7, 2012, accessed November 25, 2019 .
  4. ↑ Ladies and Gentlemen, SCO v. IBM Is Officially Reopened ~ pj. In: Groklaw . June 15, 2013, accessed November 25, 2019 .
  5. ↑ Cyrus Farivar: Appeals court keeps alive the never-ending Linux case, SCO v. IBM. In: Ars Technica. October 30, 2017, accessed November 25, 2019 .
  6. ^ Bradley Kuhn: The SCO Subpoena of FSF. In: FSF's Position Regarding SCO's Attacks on Free Software. Free Software Foundation, May 18, 2004, accessed August 22, 2007 .
  7. ↑ Michael Davidson: Re: Patents and IP Investigation. (PDF; 72 kB) August 13, 2002, accessed on August 27, 2007 (English).
  8. ↑ Paper with questions and answers on the legal dispute ( Memento of December 4, 2003 in the Internet Archive )
  9. ↑ SCO lawyers: "SCO's Answer to IBM's Amended Counterclaims" on Groklaw , October 24, 2003, page 3, paragraph 16 (English, PDF, 226 kB)
  10. ↑ Univention: "Comparison between Univention GmbH and SCO Group GmbH" ( Memento from February 10, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) in the Univention Press Center, March 1, 2004
  11. ↑ Judgment of the Munich Higher Regional Court (PDF; 1.2 MB)
  12. ↑ Court ruling Novell vs. SCO. (PDF; 27 kB) November 20, 2008, p. 3 , accessed on March 25, 2009 (English).
  13. ↑ Jury says Novell owns Unix copyrights
  14. ↑ Oliver Diedrich: Unix Copyright: SCO wants a new judgment. In: Heise online . April 28, 2010 . Retrieved April 30, 2017.
  15. ↑ Groklaw: Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! - Updated
  16. ↑ a b Oliver Diedrich: SCO vs. Linux: it's over. In: Heise online . August 31, 2011 . Retrieved April 30, 2017.
  17. ↑ Simon Sharwood: SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix. The Register, June 17, 2013, accessed April 30, 2017 .
  18. ↑ Oliver Diedrich: SCO vs. IBM: process will be restarted. In: Heise online . 17th June 2013 . Retrieved April 30, 2017.
  19. ↑ court ruling. (PDF, 519k) Federal Court of Utah , United States of America, February 5, 2016, accessed April 30, 2017 .
  20. ↑ Detlef Borchers: SCO vs. Linux / Unix: stage win for IBM. In: Heise online . February 8, 2016 . Retrieved April 30, 2017.
  21. ↑ Detlef Borchers: Unix feud: reproach against IBM as a saving straw for SCO ?. In: Heise online . October 31, 2017 . Retrieved May 16, 2019.