Editing Timeline of SCO–Linux disputes (section)

==Timeline==
;June 2002
:On 27 June 2002, [[Caldera International]] has a change in management, with [[Darl McBride]], formerly an executive with [[Novell]], [[FranklinCovey]], and several start-ups, taking over as CEO from Ransom Love.<ref name="cw-darl">{{cite news | url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2575775/caldera-ceo-steps-aside-to-focus-on-unitedlinux.html | title=Caldera CEO steps aside to focus on UnitedLinux | first=Todd R. | last=Weiss | magazine=Computerworld | date=June 27, 2002 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20191117235840/https://www.computerworld.com/article/2575775/caldera-ceo-steps-aside-to-focus-on-unitedlinux.html |archive-date=17 November 2019}}</ref>  Caldera International had completed its purchase of Unix assets from [[The Santa Cruz Operation]] (SCO) the previous year.  From the start of his time as CEO, McBride considers the possibility of claiming ownership of some of the code within Linux.<ref name="bw-hated">{{cite news | url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2004-02-01/the-most-hated-company-in-tech | title=The Most Hated Company In Tech | first=Jim | last=Kerstetter | magazine=Businessweek | date=February 2, 2004}}</ref>
;August 2002
:On August 26, 2002, Caldera International changes its name back to SCO, in the form of the new name [[The SCO Group]].<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2578171/sco-name-returns-as-caldera-rebrands-itself.html | title=SCO name returns as Caldera rebrands itself | first=Todd R. | last=Weiss | magazine=Computerworld | date=August 26, 2002}}</ref>
;October 2002
:McBride creates an internal organization "to formalize the licensing of our intellectual property".<ref name="starts">{{cite news | url=https://www.cnet.com/news/sco-fees-may-hit-some-linux-users/ | title=SCO fees may hit some Linux users | first=Stephen | last=Shankand | publisher=CNET | date=January 14, 2003}}</ref>

;January 2003
:SCO retains lawyer [[David Boies]], announcing that they would be investigating infringement on their intellectual property pertaining to their ownership of UNIX.<ref>{{cite news|last=Whipp |first=Matt |title=SCO hires lawyer to haul in the licence fees |publisher=PC Pro |date=2003-01-22 |url=http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=37420&rel |accessdate=2007-09-04 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040529220023/http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=37420&rel |archivedate=May 29, 2004 }}</ref>  Over the next several months, the executives of SCO issue a number of press releases and public statements alleging unspecified violations of their UNIX intellectual property rights in Linux.  They also begin to raise questions of the validity of the [[GNU General Public License|GPL]].
;March 2003
:In ''[[SCO v. IBM]]'', SCO sues [[IBM]] over its contributions to Linux, claiming that IBM stole UNIX [[trade secret]]s and gave them to [[Linux kernel]] developers. The suit was filed originally in the [[Utah]] State Court, but was immediately removed to Federal Court.
;May 2003
:The SCO Group says they sent letters to 1,500 of the world's largest corporations, including the [[Fortune 500]] companies, alleging that the use of Linux may infringe a copyright they hold on the original UNIX source code. They say that the [[Linux kernel]], the core of the operating system contains copyrighted SCO source code.  In this letter they also announce the [[United Linux#Ended|suspension of their own Linux-related activities]].
;July 2003
:The SCO Group files an amended complaint.
;August 2003
:SCO announces that they intend to issue invoices to companies using Linux.
:In ''[[Red Hat v. SCO]]'', [[Red Hat]] files suit in the [[United States District Court for the District of Delaware]] asking for a permanent injunction blocking SCO from asserting that Red Hat infringed on SCO's intellectual property with their Linux product.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/pub/Main/SCOvsIBMReferences/RH-Declaratory-Judgment.pdf |title=Red Hat, Inc. vs. The SCO Group, Inc.: Jury trial requested |accessdate=2004-08-02 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040707225218/http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/pub/Main/SCOvsIBMReferences/RH-Declaratory-Judgment.pdf |archivedate=2004-07-07 }}</ref> 
:IBM files its counterclaims, alleging that SCO has violated the [[GNU General Public License|GPL]], several patents, and the [[Lanham Act]] by falsely accusing IBM of violating SCO's IP rights.
;September 2003
:SCO [[CEO]], [[Darl McBride]], writes an open letter to the [[free software community]]. In this letter he accuses the free software community of being responsible for recent [[DDoS]] attacks on the SCO website and once again asserts that Linux violates SCO's intellectual properties.
:IBM files amended counterclaims, including a claim of copyright infringement.
;October 2003
:BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada invest $US50 million in SCO to support the legal cost of the SCOsource program.
:SCO announces that it would not attempt invoicing Linux users after being threatened with mail fraud.
;December 2003
:SCO sends a letter to all Unix licensees asking them to certify certain questions regarding the use of Linux.
:SCO sends a letter claiming ownership of the Linux [[Application binary interface|ABI]] code.

;January 2004
:SCO sends a letter to the [[United States Congress]], raising issues such as the economics of open source development and the legality of the [[GNU General Public License|GPL]].
:In, ''[[SCO v. Novell]]'', SCO files slander of title suit against [[Novell]].
;February 2004
:The SCO Group becomes the target of the [[Mydoom]] [[computer worm]], which was programmed to launch a [[denial of service]] attack on the company's website beginning on February 1, 2004. The Group has also been the subject of a [[Google bomb]] campaign. Google returns SCO's website as the number one hit for the phrase "litigious bastards."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.infopackets.com/news/3190/just-when-linux-users-thought-they-were-safe-sco-back |title=Just when Linux users thought they were safe: SCO is back! |author=Kurt D. Lynn |date=February 18, 2008 |access-date=2022-06-30}}</ref>
:SCO files a second amended complaint against IBM. It drops the trade secret claims, but adds claims of copyright infringement.
;March 2004
:In ''[[SCO v. AutoZone]]'', SCO files suit against [[AutoZone]] in [[Nevada]] state court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/AZ/AZ-1.pdf |title=SCO Group v. Autozone Inc |date=3 March 2004 |access-date=21 February 2024 |publisher=United States District Court: District of Nevada}}</ref>
:In ''[[SCO v. DaimlerChrysler]]'', SCO files suit against [[DaimlerChrysler]].
:IBM files [[Pleading (United States)|second amended counterclaims]].
;April 2004
:The ''Red Hat v. SCO'' case is [[Stay of proceedings|stayed]] until resolution of the ''SCO v. IBM'' case.
;May 2004
:IBM files a [[Motion (legal)|motion]] for partial [[summary judgment]] on a claim for [[declaratory judgment]] of non-infringement. This would confirm that IBM has not infringed on any SRVx code in its Linux activities.
;June 2004
:The ''SCO v. Novell'' case is dismissed due to inadequate pleading of [[special damages]].  
;July 2004
:The ''SCO v. AutoZone'' case is stayed pending the outcome in ''SCO v. IBM''.
:All claims in the ''SCO v. DaimlerChrysler'' case are dismissed except on the matter of breach of section 2.05, in that DC did not submit their response in a timely manner.
:SCO files an amended complaint in ''SCO v. Novell''.
;August 2004
:IBM files motion for partial summary judgment on [[breach of contract]] claims in ''SCO v. IBM''.  This judgment would confirm that the AT&T license agreement placed no restrictions on derivative works.
:IBM files motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement in SCO v. IBM.  This judgment would find SCO guilty of [[copyright infringement]] of IBM's contributions to Linux.
:Randall Davis (MIT) files his second declaration on behalf of IBM. In it, he describes his examination of SCO's claims of infringement, using both the "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/comparator COMPARATOR]" and "[http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dick/sim.html SIM]" tools. He concluded that, "Despite an extensive review, I could find no source code in any of the IBM Code [including AIX, Dynix, Linux, or JFS] that incorporates any portion of the source code contained in the Unix System V Code or is in any other manner similar to such source code. Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on Unix System V Code."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040917083356327 |website=Groklaw |title=Dr. Randall Davis's 2nd Declaration – I Found No Identical or Similar Code |date=17 September 2004 |access-date=21 February 2024}}</ref>
:Novell files a motion to dismiss.
;December 2004
:''SCO v. DaimlerChrysler'' case is dismissed without [[prejudice (law)|prejudice]] based on stipulation of the parties. If SCO wishes to pursue the remaining claim (i.e. whether DaimlerChrysler replied in a timely manner) again, they must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees from August 9, 2004.
:SCO appeals to [[Michigan Court of Appeals]].

;January, 2005
:SCO's appeal of the DaimlerChrysler case is dismissed.
;February, 2005
:IBM's motions for partial summary judgment are denied without prejudice, to be refiled after the close of [[Discovery (law)|discovery]].
;June 2005
:On June 20, expert [[Brian W. Kernighan]] filed a declaration on behalf of IBM. He testified that he had performed an analysis of SCO's specific claims and that there was no similarity between the portions of Linux identified by SCO and the allegedly copyrighted works.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-456decl.pdf |title=The SCO Group, Inc v. International Business Machines Corporation (Case 2:03-cv-00294-DAK-BCW, Document 456) |publisher=United States District Court: District of Utah |via=Groklaw |access-date=21 February 2024}}</ref>
;July 2005
:On July 1, U.S. Federal Judge [[Dale A. Kimball]] denied The SCO Group's motion to amend their claim against IBM again (a third amended complaint) and include new claims regarding [[Project Monterey|Monterey]] on the [[PowerPC]] architecture. In the same decision, the five-week jury trial date was set for February 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050701182523700 |title=IBM Wins Big – SCO Motion to Amend Complaint Denied; Trial Date Set |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |access-date=21 February 2024 |date=1 July 2005}}</ref>
:Novell files its answer with the court, denying SCO's claims. 
:Novell files counterclaims asking the court to force SCO to turn over the revenues it had received from UNIX licenses, less a 5% administrative fee. Additionally, Novell asks the court to place the funds in a "constructive trust" in order to ensure that SCO can pay Novell since the company's assets are depleting rapidly.
:On July 14, [[Groklaw]] obtained an email<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050714144923365 |title=The Michael Davidson Email/Swartz Memo – SCO v. IBM (3 updates) |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |access-date=21 February 2024 |date=14 July 2005}}</ref> from Michael Davidson to SCO Group senior vice president Reginald Broughton sent on August 13, 2002. In it, Davidson describes [[The Santa Cruz Operation]]'s own investigation into whether or not [[Linux]] contained proprietary [[Unix|UNIX]] [[source code]]. "At the end, we had found absolutely ''nothing'', i.e., no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever", Davidson concluded. At which time SCO presented as evidence an e-mail from a Robert Swartz, a consultant hired by SCO to compare UNIX and Linux source files, that copyright infringement could exist.
;December 2005
:Final deadline passes in ''SCO v. IBM'' to disclose allegedly misused material with specificity. SCO provides IBM with a list of 294 alleged violations.

;January 2006
:SCO files a second amended complaint against Novell. It adds claims of [[copyright infringement]], [[unfair competition]] and breach of a [[non-compete agreement]].
;April 2006
:[[SUSE S.A.|SuSE]] (now owned by Novell) files an arbitration request with the ICC International Court of Arbitration. It asks to preclude SCO from asserting proprietary rights to any code in [[Linux]].
:Novell files a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of SuSE arbitration.
;May 2006
:SCO and IBM exchange initial expert reports.
;June 2006
:Most of the items on SCO's list of allegedly misused material are stricken by the magistrate judge in SCO v. IBM due to lack of specificity.
;November 2006
:On November 29, Judge Kimball affirmed Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells' June 28, 2006 Order<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-884.pdf |title=The SCO Group, Inc v. International Business Machines Corporation (Case 2:03-cv-00294-DAK-BCW, Document 884) |date=28 June 2006 |publisher=United States District Court for the District of Utah: Central Division |via=Groklaw |access-date=21 February 2024}}</ref> striking most of SCO's claimed evidence of code misuse as being too vague to be worth adjudicating. 
;December 2006
:On December 1, Wells ruled from the bench in accepting IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims to those supported by evidence submitted by December 22, 2005 and not rejected by the court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061130201113626 |title=First Word from the Hearing: It's IBM All the Way |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |access-date=21 February 2024 |date=30 November 2006}}</ref> SCO stock subsequently lost roughly 50% of its value in three days of exceptionally heavy trading.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://finance.google.com/finance/historical?cid=664357&startdate=Nov+29%2C+2006&enddate=Dec++1%2C+2006 |title=Historical Prices for SCOX |access-date=2007-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071024065207/http://finance.google.com/finance/historical?cid=664357&startdate=Nov+29%2C+2006&enddate=Dec++1%2C+2006 |archive-date=24 October 2007}}</ref>

;April 2007
:SCO brings [[Pamela Jones]] of [[Groklaw]] into both ''SCO v. IBM'' and ''SCO v. Novell'' cases. They claim that they have attempted to serve Jones although she denies knowledge of any such attempts.
;August 2007
:On August 10, Judge Dale Kimball issued a ruling in ''[[SCO v. Novell]]'' which found that "Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights"<ref name="doc377">{{cite web |url=http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Novell/Novell-377.pdf |title= MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK |publisher=United States District Court for the District of Utah: Central Division |access-date=21 February 2024}}</ref> and SCO to be in breach of its [[SVRX]] licensing agreement with Novell.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070812-sco-never-owned-unix-copyrights-owes-novell-95-percent-of-unix-royalties.html |title=SCO never owned UNIX copyrights, owes Novell 95 percent of UNIX royalties |website=Ars Technica |date=2007-08-12 |access-date=21 February 2024 |first=Ryan |last=Paul}}</ref> The ruling also cast further doubt on SCO's claims that [[IBM]] and [[Linux]] infringe against any SCO source code, and upheld Novell's right to force SCO to waive its copyright claims against IBM and [[Sequent Computer Systems|Sequent]]. In response, on Monday, August 13, SCO stock fell over 70%, to 44 cents a share.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070813-investors-bailing-on-sco-stock-scox-plummets.html |title=Investors bailing on SCO stock, SCOX plummets |website=Ars Technica |date=2007-08-13 |access-date=21 February 2024 |first=Ryan |last=Paul}}</ref>
;September 2007
:The trial in ''[[SCO v. Novell]]'' was due to start on Monday September 17, in order to determine how much money SCO owed Novell. On September 14, SCO Group filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under [[Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code|Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code]].<ref name="bankruptcy">{{cite press release |url=http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=264124 |title=The SCO Group Files Chapter 11 to Protect Assets as It Addresses Potential Financial and Legal Challenges |publisher=The SCO Group, Inc |date=2007-09-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071006065244/http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=264124 |archive-date=2007-10-06}}</ref> As a result of the petition for bankruptcy, all pending litigation was [[Bankruptcy in the United States#The Automatic stay|automatically stayed]] as per [[United States Code|U.S.C.]] § 362. On September 27, NASDAQ issued SCO a notice of potential delisting, under their discretionary authority. SCO appealed this decision, but on September 19, it received another delisting warning for an insufficient bid price.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070919/law124.html?.v=49 The SCO Group Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter]. The SCO Group, Inc. press release, 2007-09-19 {{dead link|date=September 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070928/laf019.html?.v=101 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120701174313/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070928/laf019.html?.v=101 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-07-01 |title=SCO Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter |access-date=2007-09-30}}</ref> On October 23, SCO announced that they had reached an agreement with [[York Capital Management]]. Pending Bankruptcy Court approval, York was to purchase most of SCO's business for a total of approximately $36 million, including financing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023172159177 |title=SCO Has a Bid; Would Like More – Updated |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |date=2007-10-23 |access-date=2008-02-15 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081201185442/http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023172159177 |archive-date=1 December 2008 }}</ref> After Novell, IBM,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007110116232284 |title=Here Come the Objections to the Asset Sale — IBM is Baaack |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |date=2007-11-01 |access-date=21 February 2024 }}</ref> and the [[United States Trustee]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071114002742380 |title=US Trustee Objects to SCO's Proposed Asset Sale and more |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |date=2007-11-14 |access-date=2008-02-15}}</ref> objected to the deal, SCO withdrew the proposed sale on November 20, [[without prejudice]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071120141133294 |title=SCO Withdraws Asset Sale Motion (Without Prejudice) – Updated, as text |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |date=2007-11-20 |access-date=2008-02-15}}</ref>
;November 2007
:[[Novell]] succeeded in getting a court to lift [[SCO Group|SCO]]'s Chapter 11 immunity from legal action and will continue with legal action against [[SCO Group|SCO]].
;December 2007
:[[SCO Group|SCO]] stock is delisted from the [[NASDAQ]] stock exchange.

;July 2008
:[[Novell]] granted award of 2.5 million against SCO.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

;August 2009
:On August 24, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] partially reverses summary judgment in [[SCO v. Novell]], deciding that an issue of fact was present that should have been reserved for a trial.  It affirmed the judgment on royalties due, while reversing the summary judgments on ownership of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, SCO's claim seeking specific performance, the scope of Novell's rights under Section 4.16 of the APA, and the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Novell's rights under Section 4.16 of the APA. The reversed judgments were remanded to trial.<ref name="ck10.uscourts.gov">http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-4217.pdf{{dead link|date=September 2011}}</ref>
;October 2009
:On October 14, 2009, SCO Group announced that the company had terminated CEO Darl McBride's contract.

;March 2010
:The SCO Group's case against Novell for slander of title is heard by a jury in Utah, which ruled in favor of Novell. The jury determines that the Unix copyrights never transferred to SCO. A lawyer for SCO responds that the court still needed to rule on whether Novell had the right to waive SCO's claims against IBM in a related suit and whether Novell is obligated by the sales contract to transfer the copyright to SCO.  And SCO decides to continue the lawsuit against IBM for causing a decline in SCO revenues.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202 |title=Decision in SCO-Novell case ripples beyond Utah |author-first=Tom |author-last=Harvey |work=[[The Salt Lake Tribune]] |date=2010-03-30 |publisher=[[MediaNews Group]]}}</ref>
;May 2010
:Remaining issues in ''[[SCO v. Novell]]'' settled by the District Court in favor of Novell and against SCO.<ref>{{cite court | litigants= SCO v. Novell | date=2010-06-10 | url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-878.pdf}}</ref>
;June 2010
:Judge [[Ted Stewart]] decides that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's purported claims against IBM and Sequent. The Court also judges in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, ordering the case to be closed.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/06/11/sconovell-suit-is-over-sco-loses/ |title=SCO/Novell suit is over, SCO loses |author-first=John |author-last=Biggs |work=[[CrunchGear]] |date=2010-06-11 |publisher=TechCrunch Network}}</ref>
;December 2010
:SCO files an appeal of ''SCO v. Novell'', scheduled to be heard on January 20, 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=NovellAppealTL |title=SCO v. Novell Appeal Timeline |author-first=Pamela|author-last=Jones|author-link=Pamela Jones |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |access-date=2010-12-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_s_page=NovellAppealTL&use_tag=none |title=List of stories referenced in the "SCO v. Novell Appeal Timeline" |author-first=Pamela|author-last=Jones|author-link=Pamela Jones |publisher=[[Groklaw]] |access-date=2010-12-29 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130221163428/http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_s_page=NovellAppealTL&use_tag=none |url-status=dead |archive-date=2013-02-21}}</ref>

;April 2011
:Having sold off its operating assets other than the lawsuits, The SCO Group, Inc. then renames itself TSG Group, Inc.<ref>[http://www.unxisco.com/2011/04/11/unxis-completes-purchase-of-sco-unix-assets/ "UnXis Completes Purchase of SCO UNIX Assets"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111114115305/http://www.unxisco.com/2011/04/11/unxis-completes-purchase-of-sco-unix-assets/ |date=2011-11-14}}, press release 2011-04-11</ref>
;August 2011
:On August 30, 2011, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] affirms SCO's loss to Novell in the second jury/bench trial.<ref name="second appeal affirm">{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110830170454743 |title=10th Circuit Affirms in All Respects – Novell, Not SCO, Owns the Copyrights, etc.}}</ref>  SCO's appellate brief had argued that there were evidentiary errors and other issues at trial.  The affirmed verdict held that Novell did not transfer the UNIX copyrights to SCO in the amended asset purchase agreement, and that Novell has the right to waive certain alleged license violations.

;August 2012
:TSG Group, Inc. files to convert from [[Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code|Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection]] to [[Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code|Chapter 7 liquidation]] stating "There is no reasonable chance of rehabilitation" and that it is looking to reduce bankruptcy costs on itself while continuing to pursue the ''SCO v. IBM'' suit.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120807133033596 |title=SCO Files for Chapter 7: "There is no reasonable chance of 'rehabilitation" |date=2012-08-07 |publisher=[[Groklaw]]}}</ref>

;June 2013
:On June 14, 2013, Judge [[David Nuffer]] rules on ''SCO v. IBM'' motions, granting SCO's motion for reconsideration and reopening the case.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013061516065416 |title=Ladies and Gentlemen, SCO v. IBM Is Officially Reopened ~pj |date=2013-06-15 |publisher=[[Groklaw]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1115.pdf |title=Order Reopening case and vacating prior order |date=2013-06-14 |publisher=U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division}}</ref>

;June 2015
:Magistrate Judge [[Paul Warner (judge)|Paul M. Warner]] was added to the case, to oversee settlement discussions.<ref name="reg-warner"/>

;February 2016
:On February 26, 2016, SCO and IBM filed a joint motion for final entry of judgement against SCO. This enables SCO, if it wishes, to appeal the partial summary judgements in favor of IBM. Due to its bankruptcy, its only remaining asset is its right to appeal the failure of its legal claims against IBM.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1162.pdf |title=The SCO Group, Inc v. International Business Machines Corporation: Joint Motion for Certification (Case 2:03-cv-00294-DN, Document 1162) |publisher=United States District Court: District of Utah |via=Groklaw |access-date=21 February 2024}}</ref>

;October 2017
:On October 30, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issues a ruling partially in favor of the SCO Group, saying that SCO's claims that, as part of [[Project Monterey]], IBM misappropriated SCO's proprietary code in relation a "sham" version of Monterrey for [[IBM AIX]] for [[PowerPC]], could go forward.  The case is remanded to Judge Nuffer in U.S. federal court.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/appeals-court-keeps-alive-the-never-ending-linux-case-sco-v-ibm/ | title=Appeals court keeps alive the never-ending Linux case, SCO v. IBM | author-first=Cyrus | author-last=Farivar | website=Ars Technica | date=October 30, 2017}}</ref>

;February 2018
:SCO and IBM restate their remaining claims before Judge Nuffer and discuss a plan to move toward final judgement.<ref>{{cite web |title=JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case 2:03-cv-00294-DN, Document 1179 |url=https://sco-vs-ibm.org/review/acrobat/180216.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190126061200/https://sco-vs-ibm.org/review/acrobat/180216.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-date=January 26, 2019 |accessdate=25 January 2019 |location=IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION |date=2018-02-16}}</ref>

;May 2020
:Magistrate Judge Warner was no longer assigned to overseeing settlement discussions.<ref name="reg-warner">{{cite news | url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/ | title=IBM, Red Hat face copyright, antitrust lawsuit from SCO Group successor Xinuos | author-first=Thomas | author-last=Claburn | work=The Register | date=March 31, 2021 }} Subsequently updated. See also [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4402469/sco-grp-v-intl-bus-mach-inc/?page=6 SCO Grp v. Intl Bus Mach Inc (2:03-cv-00294) docket at CourtListener].</ref>

;March 2021
:On March 31, 2021 [[Xinuos]], Inc., the company that develops and markets the Unix-based OS's previously maintained by SCO, filed a copyright infringement and antitrust lawsuit against International Business Machines Corp. and Red Hat, Inc. in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division alleging that IBM and Red Hat, using wrongfully copied software code, have engaged in additional, illegal anti-competitive misconduct to corner the billion-dollar market for Unix and Linux server operating systems.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/xinuos-finishes-picking-up-scos-mantle-by-suing-red-hat-and-ibm/ |title=Xinuos—owners of what used to be SCO—file suit against Red Hat and IBM |author=Jim Salter |work=arstechnica |date=2021-04-01 |accessdate=2021-06-16}}</ref> IBM rejected the claims as "without merit" and "defying logic".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/ |title=IBM, Red Hat face copyright, antitrust lawsuit from SCO Group successor Xinuos |author=Thomas Claburn |work=The Register |date=2021-03-31 |accessdate=2021-06-16}}</ref>

;August 2021
:Word came of a possible final settlement in the ''SCO v. IBM'' case, wherein documents filed in the case indicated that the bankruptcy trustee for TSG Group and IBM appeared to be on the verge of settling the outstanding, Project Monterey-based, claims in the matter for $14.25 million.<ref name="reg-settlement">{{cite news | url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/30/sco_tsg_vs_ibm_settlement/ | title=SCO v. IBM settlement deal is done, but zombie case shuffles on elsewhere | author-first=Simon | author-last=Sharwood | work=The Register | date=August 30, 2021}}</ref>  As part of this, the trustee would give up any future related claims against IBM.<ref name="zdn-settlement">{{cite news | url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/after-almost-20-years-the-sco-vs-ibm-lawsuit-may-finally-be-ending/ | title=That Linux lawsuit: 20 years later, SCO vs IBM may finally be ending | author-first= Steven J. | author-last=Vaughan-Nichols | date=August 30, 2021 | work=Linux and Open Source | publisher=ZDNet}}</ref>

;November 2021
:The settlement was made under those terms, with IBM paying the TSG bankruptcy trustee $14.25&nbsp;million and the trustee giving up all future claims and with each party paying their own legal costs.<ref name="settlement">{{cite news | url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/last-of-original-sco-v-ibm-linux-lawsuit-settled/ | title=Last of original SCO v IBM Linux lawsuit settled | author-first= Steven J. | author-last=Vaughan-Nichols | date=November 8, 2021 | work=Linux and Open Source | publisher=ZDNet}}</ref>