|
The SCO Litigation - From Soup to Nuts |
|
Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 07:15 AM EDT
|
We have a new permanent page, SCO Litigation - From Soup to Nuts a table showing the main events in all the SCO and SCO-related litigation, thanks to Erwan's creativity. Our hope is that it will help you to keep track of this very complex saga. Now that the SCO v. Novell trial is over, we could be seeing some action in the other cases, and this should help you to recall where they left off.
If you see any mistakes or feel we should add anything to the table, sing out, will you? We've been working on refining it behind the scenes, and we've tried to incorporate corrections and suggestions. But now it's ready for prime time. Thanks, everyone. I'll post the table here also, to make it easier for you to work on any improvements.
***************************
|
IBM: SCO Group v. International Business Machines, Inc., Utah District Court
[Timeline]
|
|
|
RH: Red Hat, Inc v. SCO Group, District Court of Delaware
[Timeline]
|
|
|
|
Novell: SCO Group v. Novell, Inc, Utah District Court
[Timeline]
|
|
|
|
|
SUSE: SUSE Linux GmbH (Germany) v. The SCO Group, inc (USA), ICC International Court of Arbitration
|
|
|
|
|
|
AZ: SCO Group v. AutoZone, District Court of Nevada
[Timeline]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DC: SCO Group v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp, Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court
[Timeline]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yarro: The Canopy Group, Inc. et al v. Ralph J. Yarro III et al. / Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al, Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BK: SCO Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
[Timeline]
|
|
2003 |
06-Mar-2003 |
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IBM |
Caldera Systems, Inc., d/b/a The SCO Group, files complaint against IBM in Utah state court, Third Judicial District, Salt Lake County
[Text].
Case removed from Utah District Court on March 25, 2003 to federal court on IBM's [01] Notice of Removal, to US District Court for the District of Utah; case assigned to Judge Dale Kimball on March 26 |
04-Aug-2003 |
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RH |
[01] Complaint filed by Red Hat against SCO Group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
20-Jan-2004 |
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
Novell |
[0] Complaint filed by SCO Group in Utah state court, in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County
[Text].
[01] Case removed to federal court, US District Court for the District of Utah, on Novell's Notice of Removal [text] on February 6, 2004 and assigned to Judge Dale Kimball |
03-Mar-2004 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
AZ |
[01] Complaint filed against AutoZone by SCO Group
[Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
DC |
Complaint filed against Daimler Chrysler by SCO Group in Michigan state court, Oakland County, 6th Judicial Circuit Court
[pdf]
[Text]
|
06-Apr-2004 |
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RH |
[34] Memorandum Order
denying SCO's Motion to Dismiss - [09] SCO's Opening Brief in Support [text];
[13] Red Hat's Answer Brief; [text]; case
is stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and IBM;
parties shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to the status of
the Utah litigation; if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an
orderly and efficient fashion the court may reconsider the stay
[Text]
|
21-Jul-2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
DC |
DaimlerChrysler's [April 14, 2004] Motion for Summary Disposition [text] granted, with one exception, whether SCO's demand for certification by licensees within 30 days was reasonable, which the judge ruled could not be settled on summary judgment
[Eyewitness Reports of Hearing]
[Article] [Transcript of hearing - order from the bench] |
06-Aug-2004 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
AZ |
[35] Order on AutoZone's Motion for Stay is granted. Parties to submit a letter every 90 days. AutoZone's [09] Motion for Transfer [text] is denied without prejudice
[Text]
|
17-Dec-2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
Yarro |
Yarro replaced as CEO of Canopy Group by William Mustard.
[Article] |
21-Dec-2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
DC |
Stipulated Order Without Prejudice, dismissing "SCO Group, Inc.'s claim for breach of contract for Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation's alleged failure to respond to the request for certification in a timely manner", SCO's last remaining claim, closing the case
[Text] |
29-Dec-2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
DC |
SCO Files Appeal
[Article] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
21-Jan-2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
DC |
[6] Order: Dismissal - Administrative - Jurisdiction
[Article] |
29-Jan-2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
Yarro |
Yarro et al sue Canopy Group [complaint; text] for unlawful ouster; Canopy files countersuit [text] |
02-Mar-2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
DC |
File Closed-Out |
08-Mar-2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
Yarro |
Yarro-Canopy cases settle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
10-Apr-2006 |
|
|
• |
• |
|
|
|
|
SUSE |
SUSE Linux GmbH files request for arbitration with the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris, pursuant to the terms of the UnitedLinux contracts. [ICC Rules]
|
28-Jun-2006 |
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IBM |
[718] Order granting in part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims . Signed by Judge Brooke C. Wells on 28-Jun-2006.
[Text]
|
25-Sep-2006 |
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IBM |
Partial Summary Judgment Motions [Table]
[IBM's 597 Exhibits in Support of Motions]
|
21-Oct-2006 |
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
SUSE |
The Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal issues the "Terms of Reference" for signature. This document, which provides the parties' positions, is subsequently signed by the other members of the Tribunal as well as by SCO and SUSE Linux GmbH.
|
29-Nov-2006 |
• |
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
IBM |
[884] Order Affirming Magistrate Judge's Order of June 28, 2006. Novell to go to trial first
[Text] |
30-Nov-2006 |
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IBM |
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells granted from the bench IBM's [695] Motion to Strike Allegations in Excess of the Final Disclosures [text]. Written Order to be prepared by IBM
[Article] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
05-Jul-2007 |
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
SUSE |
[142] Affidavit of Felix Imendoerffer, attached to SUSE's
141] Special Opposition to SCO's [69] Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay in the SCO bankruptcy [article] reveals that the Swiss Tribunal addressed the parties' jurisdictional objections, completing Phase I. Rejecting SCO's jurisdictional objections, the Tribunal held that the UnitedLinux Contracts obligate SCO to arbitrate SUSE Linux GmbH's claims and certain of SCO's counterclaims in Switzerland before the Tribunal, subject to Swiss law. Hearing set for December 3-14, 2007.
|
10-Aug-2007 |
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
Novell |
[377] Memorandum Decision and Order on Partial Summary Judgments. Resolves:
[147] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction is granted in part and denied in part;
[180] SCO's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims is granted in part and denied in part;
[171] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim is granted;
[220] SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim is denied;
[258] SCO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell's First Claim is denied;
[271] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition is granted;
[273] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims is granted in part and denied in part;
[275] Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance is granted;
and [277] Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to Establish Special Damages is ruled moot.
[Article]
[Text]
|
14-Sep-2007 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|
|
• |
BK |
[01] Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition of The SCO Group, Inc.
(Attachments:
(1) Board Resolutions,
(2) Certification and List of 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors,
(3) Certification and List of Equity Security Holders,
(4) Corporate Ownership Statement,
(5) Certification and Creditor Matrix)
[SCO Operations and SCO Group's Creditor Matrix
as text]
[Article]
[Article].
This stays all pending SCO litigation.
|
14-Nov-2007 |
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
• |
BK |
[204] Order Granting Debtor The SCO Group, Inc.'s Motion To Enforce The Automatic Stay [in the SUSE arbitration] (related document(s)
[69] [141]). Order signed on 13-Nov-2007.
|
27-Nov-2007 |
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
• |
BK |
[233] Order granting Novell's [89] Motion For Relief From Stay to Proceed with the Lawsuit
[Text] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
29-Apr-2008 |
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
Novell |
Bench Trial Begins.
Transcript, Day 1, April 29, 2008 (Opening statements, testimony by witnesses called by Novell Joseph La Sala, Chris Sontag)
[Part 1,
Part 2,
Part 3,
Text]
Transcript, Day 2, April 30, 2008 (Sontag continues, then Darl McBride, Greg Jones and then SCO calls first witness, John Masciaszek)
[Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, text]
Transcript, Day 3, May 1, 2008 (SCO witnesses William Broderick, Jean Acheson, Jeff Hunsaker, and Jay Petersen) [Part 1,
Part 2,
Part 3, text],
Transcript, Day 4, May 2, 2008 (Andrew Nagle; then closing statements) [PDF, text]
|
16-Jul-2008 |
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
Novell |
[542] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 16-Jul-2008.
[Text] |
|
|
Authored by: stork on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
someone needs to open this
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
Given the psychology involved, didn't this whole mess *start* with nuts? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brooker on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
This is absolutely a work of art! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belboz on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
Not that I found any myself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- color anomaly - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 10:31 AM EDT
- 06-apr-2004 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
Discuss Groklaw News Picks here.
Please label your post with the title of
the Groklaw News Pick to which your comment
relates.
Thanks.
--- "Experience is what you get when you didn't
get what you wanted." --R. Pausch [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
Observations not related to the Groklaw story can be posted here.
You
can reference your comments with HTTP links by using
HTML.
--- "Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you
wanted." --R. Pausch [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: grouch on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: artp on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- Linux BIOS - Authored by: argee on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: luvr on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- [OT] mobo recommendations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- $199.00 GPC2 from wallmart is hard to beat - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2008 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- [OT] THANKS! - Authored by: grouch on Monday, August 04 2008 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- Renovation - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, August 05 2008 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- William Patry shuts Copyright Blog - Authored by: ChrisP on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 12:34 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
In the previous members only article on this excellent chart, tbogart had some
really great observations for improvements to it.
Among those items he
listed was:
Caldera announces difficulties with open sourcing UNIX
due to issues with
copyright ...
His recollections of Caldera
history match mine. But looking back, why is this a problem? Each of us here
knows that Open Sourcing source code does not invalidate the copyright on
it.
A naïve question, I know, but isn't it time that this 'Microsoft brain
damage' with regard to Open Sourced copyrighted source code be healed? We need
our brains back. Open Sourcing source code affects the copyright on it not in
the least. Does every lawyer, business person, and technologist not understand
that by now?
--- "Experience is what you get when you didn't get what
you wanted." --R. Pausch [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 09:34 AM EDT |
There must have been one or two big filing each year in
the Novell
litigation that we could add without
overloading the chart.
I can't spend
too much time on it today but from what
I remember, Novell first tried to
dimiss the complaint.
Then, after [29] and [75], they hired a litigator and
went
ruthlessly on the (counter)attack.
What else could we add? SCO's
second amended complaint?
Novell's counterclaims? The date PSJs were filed? End
of
discovery?
Any suggestion welcome --- Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
It needs a large funnel at the bottom, one that spans the various lines, with
multiple $$$ going into the funnel, and with the funnel output going into the
attorney pockets.
What in incredible waste of time, money, and any shred of decency or honesty
SCOGgies and Yarro might have ever had. The line, as it exists above, is
testament to one of the largest lies in US corporate history - Microsoft - and
what they can do when the get their hooks into addle-brained people with no
moral fiber or sense of decency. Congratulations on a fine chart: you've summed
up the fiaSCO in one fell swoop.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
What were the 5 or 6 big events in these 3 years of
endless
discovery?
Please leave your suggestions. A starting point to
find ideas
might be the case
summary. --- Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
That is genius, Erwan. Simple and effective.
Now, examining the schematic closely... I see that if Darl McBride boards The
SCO Group train on the IBM line at 7:30AM on March 6, 2003, and six people board
the SUSE train on the Arbitration line at 7:40AM on April 10, 2006, and the
Novell train out of Utah is running three minutes ahead of schedule on the
morning of August 10, 2007... (get comfy, this may take a while)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2008 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Speaking of nuts.
This article fails to list the spinoff lawsuits by nuts like Daniel Wallace and
JVM.
It fails to list nuts willing to invest millions of dollars in SCO only to lose
it all.
It fails to list nuts who have written pro SCO articles either to find SCO had
so misrepresented themselves they no longer touch the subject or the few that
fall ever deeper into more ludicrous and nonsensical statements apparently
hoping for notoriety from webpage hits or actual payoffs of some sort.
Ah, but a simple Google search shows I am misreading the title to be concerned
of all these nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soup_to_nuts[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|