Scofacts: Home, Scorecard, Courtroom, Misc., Changes.
Case files: Daimler, Yarro, Others.

Contents of this page: SCO's numbers, Summary of decisions, Table of claims.

Scorecard for SCO vs. World

Legal claims by and against the SCO Group in lawsuits arising from its SCOsource initiative.

  W L Pending Monetary
Demands
Monetary
Awards
SCO: 0 2 15 > $5,000,000,000 $0
World: 0 4 25 > $0 $0
Net Court Awards to SCO[A]: $0

Compiled by Al Petrofsky. Please send corrections to <al@scofacts.org>.

Disclosure: I have a net short position in SCO's common stock (1,100 shares as of 2006-07-15). Thus, I have a direct financial interest in decreasing the public perception of SCO's value, and the prudent reader will scrutinize any information I provide that is unflattering to SCO. To facilitate this, I attempt to provide, wherever possible, convenient links to more persuasive documents, e.g., links to images of signed court filings, or to SEC filings directly from sec.gov.

Disclaimers: I am not a member of any bar, and I am certainly not your attorney at law. Nothing I write should be relied upon as legal counsel.
The "sco" in "scofacts.org" is only used to identify the subject matter here. Scofacts is not endorsed by the "SCO Group" Delaware corporation, nor by any of the registered owners of "SCO" trademarks.

Note: "W" and "L" are terms of sport, not law, and my classifications of claims into these categories are somewhat arbitrary and will become more so when we get to appeals and settlements. You'll find the footnotes and referenced court documents more helpful for determining the actual legal status of a claim.

SCO's self-reported numbers for SCOsource revenue and legal costs

The dollar amounts above do not include SCO's legal costs nor the SCOsource-related amounts it has managed to obtain without a court order. These should be included (in addition to any court-ordered amounts, when they start to happen) in SCO's self-reported operating results for its SCOsource unit, which are tabulated here:

Fiscal Period /
End Date /
SEC form:
SCOsource
Revenue
Costs Total
Costs
Net
SCOsource
Costs
Contingency
Fees
Q2 2003-04-30 10-Q $8,250,000 ($2,163,000)   ($2,163,000) $6,087,000
Q3 2003-07-31 10-Q $7,280,000 ($1,712,000)   ($1,712,000) $5,568,000
Q4 2003-10-31   $10,316,000 ($5,288,000) ($8,956,000) ($14,244,000) ($3,928,000)
FY 2003-10-31 10-K $25,846,000 ($9,163,000) ($8,956,000) ($18,119,000) $7,727,000
Q1 2004-01-31 10-Q $20,000 ($3,440,000)   ($3,440,000) ($3,420,000)
Q2 2004-04-30 10-Q $11,000 ($4,484,000)   ($4,484,000) ($4,473,000)
Q3 2004-07-31 10-Q $678,000 ($7,396,000)   ($7,396,000) ($6,718,000)
Q4 2004-10-31   $120,000 ($4,423,000)   ($4,423,000) ($4,303,000)
FY 2004-10-31 10-K $829,000 ($19,743,000)   ($19,743,000) ($18,914,000)
Q1 2005-01-31 10-Q $70,000 ($3,493,000)   ($3,493,000) ($3,423,000)
Q2 2005-04-30 10-Q $30,000 ($2,889,000)   ($2,889,000) ($2,859,000)
Q3 2005-07-31 10-Q $32,000 ($3,085,000)   ($3,085,000) ($3,053,000)
Q4 2005-10-31   $34,000 ($3,380,000)   ($3,380,000) ($3,346,000)
FY 2005-10-31 10-K $166,000 ($12,847,000)   ($12,847,000) ($12,681,000)
Q1 2006-01-31 10-Q $30,000 ($4,010,000)   ($4,010,000) ($3,980,000)
Q2 2006-04-30 10-Q $34,000 ($3,762,000)   ($3,762,000) ($3,728,000)
YTD 2006-04-30 10-Q $64,000 ($7,772,000)   ($7,772,000) ($7,708,000)
Totals: $26,905,000 ($49,525,000) ($8,956,000) ($58,481,000) ($31,576,000)

In SCO's SEC reports (see links in the table), SCO defines "Cost of SCOsource licensing revenue" to include "legal and professional fees incurred in connection with our SCOsource initiatives", with the exception that the 20% "contingency fee" in 2003Q4 (in connection with the preferred stock issuance in October) was accounted for as a separate "Compensation to Law Firms" item. Of this $8,956,000 "contingency fee", originally only $1,000,000 was to be paid in cash and the rest in common stock, but SCO eventually agreed to satisfy the entire obligation in cash.

This "contingency fee" to the law firms was not contingent upon winning a judgment, settlement, or buyout -- in other words, nothing that might have required SCO's legal team to persuade a judge or opposing litigant that SCO's cases had any merit. It was merely contingent upon persuading an investment group led by BayStar Capital to pay $50 million for some preferred SCO stock. That preferred stock was later exchanged for $13 million and 2.8 million shares of common stock. Thus, the net transaction was that the BayStar investors acquired 2.8 million shares of SCO common stock for $37 million, or $13 per share. Since the time those shares were delivered to the BayStar investors (beginning in May 2004), all trades of SCO on NASDAQ have been for $6.50 per share or less.

Note that the entirety of FY2003 SCOsource revenue, $25,846,000, was derived from two deals with Sun and Microsoft that did not involve Linux. From page 9 of the 2003 10-K:

During fiscal year 2003, we entered into two significant license agreements. The first of these licenses was with Sun, a long-time UNIX licensee and a major participant in the UNIX industry. The second license was to Microsoft and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatible products, subject to certain specified limitations. The Sun and Microsoft license agreements accounted for $25,846,000 of our revenue in fiscal 2003

Thus the "Linux End User Intellectual Property ('IP') License Initiative", and other efforts to obtain payments to SCO for the use of Linux, generated no more than $31,000 through 2004-04-30, despite SCO's announcement on 2003-08-11 that:

The SCO Group today announced the signing of its first Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX(R) Rights. This announcement comes less than a week after the commencement of the SCO IP License for Linux program. Terms of the deal and the Fortune 500 company name were not disclosed based on confidentiality provisions of the agreement, but a license was purchased for each of the Linux servers running their business.

Somehow this generated zero SCOsource revenue in that fiscal quarter (2003Q4), and no more than $31,000 in the two subsequent quarters. On 2004-03-01 SCO announced:

SCO will provide EV1Servers.Net with a site license that allows the use of SCO IP in binary form on all Linux servers managed by EV1Servers.Net in each of its hosting facilities. EV1Servers.Net joins other Fortune 1000 companies that have signed up for a SCO IP license, which was initially offered in August 2003. EV1Servers.Net is one of the world's leading dedicated server providers, with more than 20,000 servers under management.

Through 2004-04-30, no significant revenue had been reported for this deal either, nor for the deals with the "other Fortune 1000 companies" that EV1 "join[ed]".

Summary of "significant" decisions and court orders

At this point, "significant" means that an order wholly or partially disposed of a filed claim, or denied a motion to do so. (Should there ever be any, I will also include any rulings on motions for preliminary injunctions.)

Table of Claims

Most links in the table are to the relevant case filings. A link of the form YYYY-MM-DD/N indicates the Nth claim of the complaint or answer on that date, and the link points to the appropriate page of the filing. For a claim that was abandoned by amending a complaint to omit it, the filing referenced in the "Resolution" column is the first version of the complaint that omitted the claim.

Opus Case Claim Filed
(Amended)
Answered Upcoming
(or Recent)
Court Date
Trial Date Resolution Demand Award Court & Judge
Opus Case Claim Filed
(Amended)
Answered Upcoming
(or Recent)
Court Date
Trial Date Resolution Demand Award Court & Judge
1 SCO[B] v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets 2003-03-06/1
2003-07-22/6[C]
2003-04-30/1
2003-05-20/1
2003-08-06/6
    Lost[D]
2004-02-27
> $0 $0 UT/3rd Lewis
U.S./UT Cassell[E]
U.S./UT Kimball[F][G]
2 SCO[B] v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Unfair Competition 2003-03-06/2
2003-07-22/4[C]
2004-02-27/6[H]
2003-04-30/2
2003-05-20/2
2003-08-06/4
2004-03-26/6
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $1,000,000,000   UT/3rd Lewis
U.S./UT Cassell[E]
U.S./UT Kimball[F][G]
3 SCO[B] v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Interference With Contract (UNIX customer contracts) [J] 2003-03-06/3
2003-07-22/5[C]
2004-02-27/7[H]
2003-04-30/3
2003-05-20/3
2003-08-06/5
2004-03-26/7
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   UT/3rd Lewis
U.S./UT Cassell[E]
U.S./UT Kimball[F][G]
4 SCO[B] v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Breach of IBM Software Agreement[K] 2003-03-06/4
2003-07-22/1[C]
2004-02-27/1[H]
2003-04-30/4
2003-05-20/4
2003-08-06/1
2004-03-26/1
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AJ] > $1,000,000,000[L]   UT/3rd Lewis
U.S./UT Cassell[E]
U.S./UT Kimball[F][G]
5 SCO v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Breach of IBM Sublicensing Agreement 2003-07-22/2
2004-02-27/2[H]
2003-08-06/2
2004-03-26/2
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AJ] > $1,000,000,000[M]   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
6 SCO v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Breach of Sequent Software Agreement 2003-07-22/3
2004-02-27/3[H]
2003-08-06/3
2004-03-26/3
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AJ] > $1,000,000,000   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
7 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
For Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of Copyrights[N] 2003-08-04/1 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P]     U.S./DE Robinson
8 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
For Declaratory Judgment of No Misappropriation of Trade Secrets 2003-08-04/2 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P]     U.S./DE Robinson
9 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
False Advertising in Violation of the Lanham Act 2003-08-04/3 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P] > $0   U.S./DE Robinson
10 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
Deceptive Trade Practices 2003-08-04/4 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P] > $0   U.S./DE Robinson
11 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
Unfair Competition 2003-08-04/5 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P] > $0   U.S./DE Robinson
12 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Opportunities 2003-08-04/6 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P] > $0   U.S./DE Robinson
13 Red Hat v. SCO
U.S./DE 03-cv-772
Trade Libel and Disparagement 2003-08-04/7 (Stayed[O]
2004-04-06)
2006-09-06   Pending[P] > $0   U.S./DE Robinson
14 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Breach of Contract 2003-08-06/1
2003-09-25/1
2004-03-29/1[Q]
2003-10-24/1
2004-03-11/1[H]
2004-04-23/1
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
15 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Lanham Act Violation 2003-08-06/2
2003-09-25/2
2004-03-29/2[Q]
2003-10-24/2
2004-03-11/2[H]
2004-04-23/2
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
16 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Unfair Competition 2003-08-06/3
2003-09-25/3
2004-03-29/3[Q]
2003-10-24/3
2004-03-11/3[H]
2004-04-23/3
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
17 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations 2003-08-06/4
2003-09-25/4
2004-03-29/4[Q]
2003-10-24/4
2004-03-11/4[H]
2004-04-23/4
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
18 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 2003-08-06/5
2003-09-25/5
2004-03-29/5[Q]
2003-10-24/5
2004-03-11/5[H]
2004-04-23/5
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
19 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Breach of the GNU General Public License 2003-08-06/6
2003-09-25/6
2004-03-29/6[Q]
2003-10-24/6
2004-03-11/6[H]
2004-04-23/6
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
20 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Patent Infringement (#4,814,746, Compression)[R] 2003-08-06/7
2003-09-25/9
2004-03-29/11[Q]
2003-10-24/9
2004-03-11/9[H]
2004-04-23/11
    Lost[AM]
2005-10-11
> $0 $0 U.S./UT Kimball[G]
21 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Patent Infringement (#4,821,211, Menus)[S] 2003-08-06/8
2003-09-25/10
2003-10-24/10
2004-03-11/10[H]
    Lost[T]
2004-03-29
> $0 $0 U.S./UT Kimball[G]
22 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Patent Infringement (#4,953,209, Self-Verifying)[U] 2003-08-06/9
2003-09-25/11
2004-03-29/12[Q]
2003-10-24/11
2004-03-11/11[H]
2004-04-23/12
    Lost[AM]
2005-10-11
> $0 $0 U.S./UT Kimball[G]
23 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Patent Infringement (#5,805,785, Monitoring)[V] 2003-08-06/10
2003-09-25/12
2004-03-29/13[Q]
2003-10-24/12
2004-03-11/12[H]
2004-04-23/13
    Lost[AM]
2005-10-11
> $0 $0 U.S./UT Kimball[G]
24 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Promissory Estoppel 2003-09-25/7
2004-03-29/7[Q]
2003-10-24/7
2004-03-11/7[H]
2004-04-23/7
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
25 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Copyright Infringement[W] 2003-09-25/8
2004-03-29/8[Q]
2003-10-24/8
2004-03-11/8[H]
2004-04-23/8
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AK] > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
26 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Declaratory Judgment 2003-09-25/13
2004-03-29/14[Q]
2003-10-24/13
2004-03-11/13[H]
2004-04-23/14
2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending     U.S./UT Kimball[G]
27 SCO v. Novell
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Slander of Title 2004-01-20
2004-07-09[X]
2006-02-03/1[AO]
2005-07-29
2006-04-10/1
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending[X][AI] > $0   UT/3rd Quinn
U.S./UT Kimball[Y]
28 SCO v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Breach of Sequent Sublicensing Agreement 2004-02-27/4 2004-03-26/4 2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AJ] > $1,000,000,000   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
29 SCO v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Copyright Infringement[Z] 2004-02-27/5 2004-03-26/5 2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
30 SCO v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Interference with Contract (Novell contracts)[J] 2004-02-27/8 2004-03-26/8 2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
31 SCO v. IBM
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Interference with Business Relationships 2004-02-27/9 2004-03-26/9 2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball[G]
32 SCO v. AutoZone
U.S./NV 04-cv-237
Copyright Infringement[AA] 2004-03-03 (Stayed[AB]
2004-08-06)
    Pending > $0   U.S./NV Hagen
U.S./NV Jones[AC][AD]
33 SCO v. Daimler
MI/Cir6 04-056587-CK
MI/App 260036-C
Breach of Contract / Declaratory Judgment[AE] 2004-03-03 2004-04-15    [AL] Lost[AF]
2004-12-21
> $0 $0 MI/Cir6 Chabot
MI/App Whitbeck
34 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of Copyrights (AIX and Dynix)[AG] 2004-03-29/9[AN] 2004-04-23/9 2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AN]     U.S./UT Kimball[G]
35 IBM v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 03-cv-294
Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of Copyrights (Linux)[AG] 2004-03-29/10  [AH] 2006-04-14 2007-02-26[I] Pending[AH]     U.S./UT Kimball[G]
36 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Slander of Title 2005-07-29/1
2006-04-10/1
2005-09-12/1
2006-05-01/1
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball
37 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Breach of Contract: SS 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the Asset Purchase Agreement 2005-07-29/2
2006-04-10/2
2005-09-12/2
2006-05-01/2
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball
38 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Breach of Contract: SS 1.2(b) and 4.16(a) of the Asset Purchase Agreement 2005-07-29/3
2006-04-10/3
2005-09-12/3
2006-05-01/3
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball
39 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Declaratory Relief: Rights and Duties under S 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement 2005-07-29/4
2006-04-10/4
2005-09-12/4
2006-05-01/4
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending     U.S./UT Kimball
40 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Declaratory Relief: Rights and Obligations under APA's covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 2005-07-29/5
2006-04-10/5
2005-09-12/5
2006-05-01/5
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending     U.S./UT Kimball
41 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Restitution/Unjust Enrichment 2005-07-29/6
2006-04-10/6
2005-09-12/6
2006-05-01/6
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball
42 Novell v. SCO
counterclaims of
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Accounting 2005-07-29/7
2006-04-10/7
2005-09-12/7
2006-05-01/7
2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending     U.S./UT Kimball
43 SCO v. Novell
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Breach of the APA and TLA 2006-02-03/2 2006-04-10/2 2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball
44 SCO v. Novell
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Alternative Breach-of-Contract Claim Seeking Specific Performance 2006-02-03/3 2006-04-10/3 2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending     U.S./UT Kimball
45 SCO v. Novell
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Copyright Infringement 2006-02-03/4 2006-04-10/4 2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball
46 SCO v. Novell
U.S./UT 04-cv-139
Unfair Competition 2006-02-03/5 2006-04-10/5 2006-07-17 2007-06-25 Pending > $0   U.S./UT Kimball

A. SCO was ordered by a German court on 2003-08-28 to pay a 10,000 Euro fine. In SCO's 2003-09-15 10-Q SEC filing, SCO stated it was "evaluating whether we will appeal the administrative fine". By the time of its 2004-03-16 10-Q, SCO had resigned itself to this loss. This case is not included on the scorecard because, as an American, I'm too stupid to try to track proceedings in languages and currencies other than English and dollars.

B. (Opus 1, 2, 3, and 4.) The original complaint listed the parties as "CALDERA SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation" and "INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation".
Neither entity existed.
Caldera Systems, Inc. (a subsidiary of Caldera International, Inc. since 2001-05-07) had become SCO Operations, Inc. on 2002-09-23.
More importantly, IBM had been a New York (not Delaware) corporation since it assumed the International Business Machines name on 1924-02-14 (and was also a New Yorker back to its incorporation as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company on 1911-06-14). Thus, SCO Operations (f/k/a Caldera Systems) and IBM were citizens of different states, and on that basis IBM removed the case to federal court on 2003-03-25.
On 2003-05-16 Caldera International, Inc. changed its name to The SCO Group, Inc..
Caldera Systems, Inc. moved on 2003-06-16 to amend its complaint. This motion was granted on 2003-07-10, and on 2003-07-22 an amended complaint was filed by "The SCO Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Caldera Systems", with no documentation of this false assertion that SCO Group (f/k/a Caldera International) and its subsidiary SCO Operations (f/k/a Caldera Systems) were the same entity.
(Both SCO Group and SCO Operations are distinct from "Santa Cruz Operation", a California corporation that changed its name to Tarantella on 2001-05-07 when it sold its "SCO" trademark to Caldera.)

C. (Opus 1, 2, 3, and 4.) Caldera moved on 2003-06-16 to amend its complaint. Briefs: opening 2003-06-16, answer 2003-07-07. Granted 2003-07-10.

D. (Opus 1.) SCO's second amended complaint[H] on 2004-02-27 dropped this claim.

E. (Opus 1, 2, 3, and 4.) IBM removed case to federal court on 2003-03-25.

F. (Opus 1, 2, 3, and 4.) Reassigned on 2003-03-27 from Judge Paul G. Cassell (who recused himself) to Judge Dale A. Kimball.

G. (Opus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, and 35.)
Case referred by Judge Kimball on 2003-09-10 to a magistrate for "any nondispositive pretrial matters" and assigned on 2003-09-15 to Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells.

H. (Opus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.)
SCO moved on 2004-02-04 to make a second amendment to its complaint and to amend its answer to IBM's amended counterclaims. Briefs: opening 2004-02-04, response 2004-02-19. Granted 2004-02-25.

I. (Opus 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, and 35.)
Original 2003-07-10 scheduling order placed trial on 2005-04-11.
SCO moved on 2004-04-05 to amend the schedule, with trial moving to approximately 2005-09-15. Briefs: opening 2004-04-05, answer 2004-05-14, reply 2004-06-02. Heard 2004-06-08: minutes transcript. Partially granted 2004-06-10, with pre-trial dates moving less than requested, but the trial date moving further, to 2005-11-01.
The scheduling order was struck by Judge Wells's 2005-01-18 order, which called for the parties to propose a new scheduling order by 2005-03-25.
Judge Kimball's 2005-07-01 order set a new schedule, with a trial date of 2007-02-26.

J. (Opus 3 and 30.) Of SCO's two claims for "Interference with Contract", the first one (which is seventh in the current lineup of claims) alleges IBM interference with the contracts between SCO and SCO's UNIX customers.
The other one (now the eighth claim) alleges IBM interference with the 1995/1996 Asset Purchase Agreement (and amendments) between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation, to which SCO claims to be the successor-in-interest.

K. (Opus 4.) Changed title from "Breach of Contract" with the 2003-07-22 revision.

L. (Opus 2.) Demand increased from > $0 to > $1,000,000,000 with the 2003-07-22 revision.

M. (Opus 5.) Demand increased from > $0 to > $1,000,000,000 with the 2004-02-27 revision.

N. (Opus 7.) Seeks judgment that Red Hat's Linux activities do not infringe any SCO copyright.

O. (Opus 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.)
Judge Robinson stayed the Red Hat case sua sponte (without either party asking for it) on 2004-04-06 pending resolution of the IBM case. Red Hat moved the court to reconsider on 2004-04-20. Briefs: opening 2004-04-20, answer 2004-05-04. (No reply filed.) Denied 2005-03-31.

P. (Opus 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.)
SCO moved to dismiss Red Hat's claims on 2003-09-15 (image "Coming Soon") . Briefs: opening 2003-09-15, answer 2003-09-29, reply 2003-10-10.
Red Hat moved to supplement the record regarding dismissal on 2004-02-11. Briefs: answer 2004-02-19 text (image "Coming Soon"), reply 2004-02-26.
Dismissal denied 2004-04-06.

Q. (Opus 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.)
IBM's unopposed motion on 2004-03-26 to make a second amendment to its counterclaims was granted on 2004-03-26.

R. (Opus 20.) Patent 4,814,746, issued 1989-03-11, "Data Compression Method".

S. (Opus 21.) Patent 4,821,211, issued 1989-04-11 "Method of Navigating among Program Menus Using a Graphical Menu Tree".

T. (Opus 21.) IBM's second amended counterclaims[Q] on 2004-03-29 dropped this claim.

U. (Opus 22.) Patent 4,953,209, issued 1990-08-28 "Self-Verifying Receipt and Acceptance System for Electronically Delivered Data Objects".

V. (Opus 23.) Patent 5,805,785, issued 1998-09-08 "Method for Monitoring and Recovery of Subsystems in a Distributed/Clustered System".

W. (Opus 25.) Alleges that SCO's Linux activities infringe IBM's Linux copyrights TX 5-757-696 through TX 5-757-702. 2004-03-29 amendment adds TX 5-856-466 through TX 5-856-474.

X. (Opus 27.) Novell moved to dismiss on 2004-02-09. Briefs: opening 2004-02-09, answer 2004-03-05, reply 2004-03-19. Heard 2004-05-11 minutes transcript. Granted, without prejudice, 2004-06-09. SCO was given thirty days to refile its complaint with a sufficient pleading of special damages. SCO filed an amended complaint on 2004-07-09.

Y. (Opus 27.) Novell removed case to Federal court on 2004-02-06. SCO moved to remand back to state court on 2004-03-05. Briefs: opening 2004-03-05, answer 2004-03-26, reply 2004-04-07. Heard 2004-05-11 minutes transcript. Remand denied 2004-06-09.

Z. (Opus 29.) Alleges IBM's AIX and Dynix activities (but not its Linux activities) infringe SCO's UNIX copyrights TXU-510-028, TXu-511-236, TXu-516-704, TXU-516-705, TXu-301-868, TX 5-787-679, TX 5-750-270, TX 5-750-269, TX 5-750-271, TX 5-776-217, TX 5-705-356, TX 5-762-235, TX 5-762-234, and TX 5-750-268.

AA. (Opus 32.) Alleges AutoZone's Linux activities infringe SCO's UNIX documentation copyrights TX 2 931-646, TX 3 221-656, TX 3 227-639, TX 3 232-578, TX 3 218-286, TX 220-500, TX 3 220-331, TX 2 120-502, TX 2 881-542, TX 2 883-235, TX 2 902-863, TX 2 881-543, TX 2 853-760, TX 2 890-471, TX 2 820-791, TX 3 820-792, TX 2 833-114, TX 2 832-009, TX 2 830-989, TX 2 454-884, TX 2 494-658, TX 2 373-759, TX 2 371-952, TX 2 367-657, TX 2 366-532, TX 2 611-860, TX 2 605-292, TX 2 986-119, TX 3 218-267, and TX 3 221-654, and those UNIX code copyrights with "TX 5" registration numbers that are enumerated in SCO's infringement claim against IBM.

AB. (Opus 32.) AutoZone moved on 2004-04-23 to stay the case pending the Novell, IBM, and Red Hat cases. Briefs: opening 2004-04-23, answer 2004-05-24, reply 2004-06-04. Heard 2004-07-12: minutes, audio (30 min. mp3), unofficial transcript. Granted 2004-08-06, with the exception that "the court will allow the parties to take limited expedited discovery related to the issue of preliminary injunctive relief".
Autozone moved on 2004-09-01 to stay "all remaining proceedings related to the issue of preliminary injunctive relief". Briefs: opening 2004-09-01, answer 2004-09-08. Heard 2004-09-09. Denied 2004-09-24.
The 2004-08-06 order gave SCO until 2004-11-24 to decide whether to move for a preliminary injunction. Three subsequent extensions, entered on 2004-11-15, 2005-01-18, and 2005-03-22, extended the deadline to 2005-05-31. On 2005-05-27, SCO reported that "SCO has elected not to file for preliminary injunctive relief", and thus the case, at long last, attained the state of being stayed in all respects.

AC. (Opus 32.) Reassigned on 2003-03-11 from Judge David W. Hagen (who had requested reassignment on 2003-03-05 "to avoid the appearance of impropriety") to Judge Robert C. Jones. Judge Jones was just invested in December 2003, and he isn't yet listed on the court's website, but you can check page S12348 of the congressional record, 2003-10-02, for official confirmation that he really is a United States District Judge. (You can also see, starting on the previous page, the remarks made about him by Senator Hatch, "a fellow Cougar" and father of SCO's Salt Lake counsel, Brent Hatch.)

AD. (Opus 32.) AutoZone moved on 2004-04-23 to change venue from the federal court's District of Nevada to its Western District of Tennessee. Briefs: opening 2004-04-23, answer 2004-05-24, reply 2004-06-04. Heard 2004-07-12: minutes, audio (30 min. mp3), unofficial transcript. Denied without prejudice 2004-08-06.

AE. (Opus 33.) Complaint reads "FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract/Declaratory Judgment)". It's unclear why this is characterized as one cause of action rather than two. At the 2004-07-21 hearing, Judge Chabot ruled that "As to the claim seeking a declaratory judgment, this is also dismissed pursuant to (c)(10) as there is not a controversy at issue requiring any such declaratory judgment, nor has Plaintiff addressed this requested relief in its response to the motion for summary disposition".

AF. (Opus 33.) Daimler moved on 2004-04-15 for the complaint to be dismissed with prejudice by summary disposition. Briefs: opening 2004-04-15, answer 2004-06-18, reply 2004-06-30. Heard 2004-07-21. Partially granted 2004-08-09.
The remaining portion was dismissed, without prejudice, by the 2004-12-21 stipulated dismissal order.
SCO filed a claim of appeal on 2004-12-29, which was dismissed on 2005-01-21 (dismissal was amended on 2005-01-31).

AG. (Opus 34 and 35.) Of IBM's two claims for "Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of Copyrights", the first one (which is ninth in the current lineup of counterclaims) seeks a judgment that IBM's AIX and Dynix activities do not infringe any SCO copyright.
The other one (the tenth counterclaim) seeks a judgment that IBM's Linux activities do not infringe any SCO copyright.

AH. (Opus 35.) SCO moved on 2004-04-26 to dismiss this counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of Copyrights with respect to IBM's Linux activities), or stay it pending the AutoZone case. (This replaced the mistakenly filed 2004-04-23 motion, which requested the dismissal or stay of all three of IBM's declaratory judgment counterclaims.) Briefs: opening 2004-04-23, answer 2004-05-18, supplemental answer 2004-06-28, reply 2004-08-23.
IBM cross-moved for summary judgment on 2004-05-18. Briefs: opening 2004-05-18, answer 2004-07-09, reply (redacted) 2004-08-23.
Both motions were heard 2004-09-15, and on 2005-02-08, SCO's motion to dismiss was denied (with prejudice) and IBM's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice.
SCO has never formally answered this counterclaim. It was pleaded in paragraphs 169 to 173 of IBM's 2004-03-29 second amended counterclaims. On pages 17 and 18 of SCO's 2004-04-23 answer to the second amended counterclaims, in lieu of answering these paragraphs, SCO just repeated five times that "These allegations are the subject of a motion to dismiss or stay and therefore no response is necessary". Per F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(a)(4)(A), it would appear to me that SCO should have filed an answer within 10 days after the motion to dismiss was denied on 2005-02-08.

AI. (Opus 27.) Novell moved again to dismiss on 2004-08-06. Briefs: opening 2004-08-09, answer 2004-10-04, reply 2004-11-08. Heard on 2005-05-25. Denied 2005-06-27.

AJ. (Opus 4, 5, 6, and 28.) IBM moved on 2004-08-13 for summary judgment on SCO's four claims for breach of contract. Briefs: opening (redacted) 2004-08-16, answer 2004-11-30 (sealed). Denied without prejudice on 2005-02-08.

AK. (Opus 25.) IBM moved on 2004-08-16 "that the Court should grant summary judgment as to liability and enter a permanent injunction for IBM on its Eighth Counterclaim". Briefs: opening (redacted) 2004-08-16, answer 2004-11-30. Denied without prejudice on 2005-02-08.

AL. (Opus 33.) SCO moved on 2004-11-17 to stay the Daimler case pending developments in the IBM case. Briefs: answer 2004-11-19, reply 2004-11-22. Heard 2004-11-24. Denied 2004-12-06.
Trial had been scheduled for 2005-01-07 (see the 2004-11-18 docket entries) when the case was closed by a stipulated dismissal of the remaining issues on 2004-12-21.

AM. (Opus 20, 22, 23.) The parties stipulated on 2005-10-06 to dismiss these three patent infringement counterclaims. Granted 2005-10-11.

AN. (Opus 34.) The 2005-08-01 order says: "IBM's Ninth Counterclaim is hereby limited to seeking a declaration that IBM has not infringed SCO's alleged copyrights based on alleged breaches of license agreements with AT&T and SCO's purported termination of those licenses." See the 2005-07-01 order for the reasons.

AO. (Opus 27.)
SCO moved on 2005-12-30 for leave to file a second amended complaint. Novell stipulated to such on 2006-01-26, and leave was granted in an order entered on 2006-01-31.


Return to scofacts.org

Copyright 2004, 2005 Al Petrofsky. All parties are granted license to copy, modify, etc., this page according to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Public License.

$Id: scorecard.html,v 1.126 2006/08/09 23:00:26 al Exp $