Timeline of SCO–Linux disputes

The SCO Group is currently involved in a dispute with various Linux vendors and users. SCO has initiated a series of lawsuits that will probably define the future of both Linux and Unix. In this campaign SCO is trying to convince the world that Linux violates some of SCO's intellectual properties. Many people are sceptical of SCO's claims, and they are strongly contested by SCO's opponents in the lawsuits, some of which have launched counter-claims.

Timeline

January, 2003:

SCO retained lawyer David Boies, announcing that they would be investigating infringement on their intellectual property pertaining to their ownership of UNIX [1]. Over the next several months, the executives of SCO issued a number of press releases and public statements claiming unspecified violations of their UNIX intellectual property rights in Linux. They also begain to raise questions of the validity of the GPL License.

March, 2003:

CEO Darl McBride announced that they were suing IBM over its contributions to Linux, claiming that IBM stole UNIX trade secrets and gave them to Linux kernel developers [2]. The suit was filed originally in the Utah State Court, and was immediately removed to Federal Court. See also SCO v. IBM.

May, 2003:

The SCO Group claimed 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 claim that the Linux kernel, the core of the operating system contains copyrighted SCO source code. In this letter they also announced the suspention of their own Linux-related activities.

June, 2003:

The SCO Group acquired Vultus Inc., for an undisclosed amount [3]. Vultus Inc. was previously a sister company acting under the Canopy Group umbrella. The SCO Group and the Canopy Group also own a small amount (1.6% and 4.1%) of shares in Trolltech, creator of the Qt libaries. The Canopy Group is an operating company of other technological companies, including a Linux clustering company Linux Networx. It owns 46% of the SCO Group; the two corporations share several executives.

August, 2003:

SCO annouced that they intended to issue invoices to companies using Linux.

Red Hat files suit in the U.S. District Court of Delaware asking for a permanent injunction blocking SCO from asserting that Red Hat violates and SCO intellectual property [4]. See also: Red Hat v. SCO.

IBM files its counter claim, alledging that SCO has violated the GPL, several patents, and the Lantham Act by falsely accusing IBM of violating SCO's IP rights.

September, 2003:

SCO CEO, Darl McBride, writes an open letter to the open source community. In this letter he claims that the open source community is responsible for recent DDoS attacks on the SCO website and once again claims that Linux violates SCO's intellectual properties.

October, 2003:

BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada invest $US50 million in SCO to support the legal cost of the SCOsource program.

SCO announced that it would not attempt invoicing Linux users after being threated 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 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 GPL.

SCO files slander of title suit against Novell.

February, 2004:

The SCO Group was the target of the Mydoom computer worm, which was programmed to launch a denial of service attack on the company's website beginning on 1 February 2004. The Group has also been the subject of a Googlebomb attack. Google returns SCO's website as the number one hit for the phrase "litigious bastards."

March, 2004:

SCO files suit against AutoZone in Navada state court [5]. See also: SCO v. AutoZone.

SCO files suit against DaimlerChrysler. See also: SCO v. DaimlerChrysler.

April, 2004:

The Red Hat v. SCO case is stayed until resolution of the SCO v. IBM case.

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 SCO v. IBM case.

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 and amended complaint in SCO v. Novell.