“SCO Group”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

SCO, The SCO Group, The TSG Group, Caldera Systems, and Caldera International are the various names of an American software company that became known for acquiring the Santa Cruz Operation's Server Software and Services divisions, and UnixWare and OpenServer technologies, and then, under CEO Darl McBride, pursuing a series of legal battles known as the SCO-Linux controversies.

The company was part of the Canopy Group, but became independent in {{date|March 2005}}, after the settlement of a lawsuit between the Noorda family and a chairman of the group, Ralph Yarro, also former CEO of the Canopy Group. As part of the settlement, Canopy transferred all of its shares to Yarro.^[1]^[2]

Later on, Caldera International changed its name to "SCO" and then to "The SCO Group" to reflect that change in focus.

In January 2004, their website, www.sco.com, was attacked by the Mydoom computer virus, which took down the website for 2 weeks using a DDoS attack.^[3]

In September 2007, SCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.^[4] In April 2011, UnXis, Inc. (currently Xinuos) bought The SCO Group, Inc. operating assets and intellectual property rights after having been approved by the bankruptcy court in Delaware. The SCO Group, Inc. then renamed itself TSG Group, Inc.^[5]^[6] In August 2012, TSG Group, Inc. filed to convert from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to Chapter 7 stating "There is no reasonable chance of rehabilitation".^[6] On June 14, 2013, Judge David Nuffer ruled on SCO v. IBM motions, granting SCO's motion for reconsideration and reopening the case.^[7]^[8]

History

The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO)

Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) was a software company based in Santa Cruz, California which was best known for selling three UNIX variants for Intel x86 processors: Xenix, SCO UNIX (later known as SCO OpenServer), and UnixWare. In his book The Art of Unix Programming, Eric Raymond calls SCO the "first UNIX company".^[9] Prior to this UNIX vendors were either computer hardware manufacturers or telephone companies.

In 1993, SCO acquired two smaller companies and developed the product line that was named Tarantella. In 2001, SCO sold its rights to UNIX and the related divisions to Caldera Systems.^[10] After selling its UNIX interests, SCO retained only its Tarantella product line, and therefore changed its name to Tarantella, Inc.

Caldera Systems, Caldera Holdings, Caldera International{{anchor|Caldera Systems}}

Caldera, Inc. based in Utah, was founded in 1994 by Bryan Sparks^[11] and Ransom Love,^[12] receiving start-up funding from Ray Noorda's Canopy Group. Its main product was Caldera Network Desktop, a Linux distribution mainly targeted at business customers and containing some proprietary additions. Caldera, Inc. later purchased the German LST Software GmbH and its LST Power Linux distribution, which was made the basis of their following product Caldera OpenLinux.

Caldera, Inc. inherited a lawsuit against Microsoft when it purchased DR-DOS from Novell in 1996. This lawsuit related to Caldera's claims of monopolization, illegal tying, exclusive dealing, and tortious interference by Microsoft.

In August 1998, the original Caldera, Inc. company split into two daughter companies named Caldera Systems, Inc. and Caldera Thin Clients, Inc. Caldera Systems took over the Linux business, while Caldera Thin Clients took over the DOS and embedded business.^[13] The shell company Caldera, Inc., remained responsible for the lawsuit only.

Microsoft reached a settlement in January 2000 with Caldera, Inc., after which Caldera, Inc. stopped its operation. The payments involved in this settlement were later revealed inadvertently to be $280 million during the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit as documented on Groklaw.^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]

Caldera Systems reincorporated in Delaware on {{date|March 2, 2000|mdy}}^[18] and completed an IPO of its common stock. By way of a temporary Caldera Holdings, Inc., the company reorganized in August 2000.

On 2 August 2000,{{citation needed|date=May 2014|reason=The exact date is quite important given the various company reorganizations happening in 2000/2001.}} Santa Cruz Operation announced that it would sell its Server Software and Services Divisions, as well as OpenServer and UnixWare, to Caldera Systems, Inc., proprietary operating systems for PCs that would be expected to compete directly with Linux. In {{date|March 2001}}, Caldera Systems became Caldera International, Inc. (CII), and the SCO purchase was completed in May 2001.{{citation needed|date=May 2014|reason=The exact date is quite important given the various company reorganizations happening in 2000/2001.}}

In 2002, Caldera International joined with SuSE Linux (now SUSE), Turbolinux and Conectiva to form United Linux in an attempt to standardize Linux distributions.^[19]

Later that year, CEO Ransom Love left the company and was replaced by Darl McBride, and the company changed its name to The SCO Group in August 2002.

Caldera International's name-change to The SCO Group created some confusion between The SCO Group (formerly known as Caldera International) and Tarantella (formerly known as SCO). The company described here is The SCO Group (formerly Caldera International). Although generally referred to simply as "SCO" up to 2001, the parent company is sometimes referred to as "old SCO" or "Santa Cruz" to distinguish it from "The SCO Group" to whom the U.S. trademark "SCO" was transferred.^[20]

Legal battles

In or around 2003, SCO began to claim that Linux "contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX".^[21] SCO filed suit against IBM for an unprecedented US$1 billion and demanded that Linux end-users pay license fees. Microsoft bolstered SCO's financial situation in 2003 by purchasing a license to UNIX technology and by helping to arrange funding.^[22] A new division called SCOsource was created to license the company's intellectual property (IP). These claims provoked outrage among Linux users, who denied that Linux had copied SCO's intellectual property. Linux distributor Red Hat filed suit against SCO in Delaware. Novell, from whom SCO claimed to have acquired its UNIX IP, announced that it had not sold the copyrights to SCO and that it retained them. In response, SCO sued Novell for slander of title in Utah, home state of both SCO and Novell.

Subsequently, the SCO Group sued two former customers (AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler). In SCO v. AutoZone, SCO claimed that AutoZone violated SCO copyrights by using Linux. In SCO v. DaimlerChrysler, SCO claimed that DaimlerChrysler breached its UNIX license contract by inappropriately using derivative works of UNIX and by refusing to respond to requests for certification of compliance by SCO. SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler was dismissed in 2004.

Decline

After announcing its legal claims against various Linux users and vendors (see SCO-Linux controversies), the company suspended sales and development of its Linux related products. Attention was shifted to the UnixWare and OpenServer UNIX products previously acquired from the Santa Cruz Operation.

On February 17, 2005, the SCO Group issued a press release that stated their stock may soon be delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange for failing to issue an annual 10-K report in a timely manner as required by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.^[23] In late April 2005, after complying with the filing requirements, the NASDAQ switched trading of the SCO Group from "SCOXE" (which denotes a listing which may be delisted soon) back to their original "SCOX" stock symbol.

On April 23, 2007, SCO received a second delisting notice from NASDAQ. This was triggered by the active bid price of company stock, at closing, being less than $1 for 30 consecutive trading days. To regain compliance with continued listing requirements, the company must maintain a closing bid price greater than or equal to $1 for at least 10 trading days.^[24] The stock regained compliance on June 12, 2007.^[25]

Bankruptcy

Shortly after Judge Dale Kimball's ruling on August 10, 2007, SCO Group filed for reorganization on September 14, 2007, under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.^[4]

SCO was delisted from NASDAQ on December 27, 2007, due to its bankruptcy filing.^[26]

On February 14, 2008, SCO filed a memorandum of understanding between it and Stephen Norris Capital Partners (SNCP).^[27] Under the proposed deal, subject to Bankruptcy Court confirmation, SNCP would pay SCO up to $100 million (including a $95 million loan at LIBOR + 17 percentage points). If the restructuring had been confirmed, SCO would have{{Failed verification|date=October 2018|talkpage=Talk:SCO Group#Crystal Ball|reason=This projection is not endorsed by the provided reference and Wikipedia does not endorse such speculations.}} exited Chapter 11, gone private, and repaid all creditors (including Novell and IBM) in full. SNCP would then have received a controlling interest in SCO. A joint press release stated that SNCP's business plans for SCO include both "unveiling new product lines" and "see[ing] SCO's legal claims through to their full conclusion."^[28] The proposal was abandoned two months later.^[29]

On January 12, 2009, SCO filed a new reorganization plan with the bankruptcy court.^[30]

On May 5, 2009, the U.S. Trustee's office, through its counsel Joseph J. McMahon, Jr., filed a motion in the SCO bankruptcy proceeding to convert the SCO's Chapter 11 to a liquidation under Chapter 7.^[31]

On June 15, 2009, Darl McBride announced during the liquidation hearing that they had come to an agreement with Gulf Capital Partners for funding to pay off the debts and continue its litigation against IBM and others, through the sale of its UNIX division.^[32]^[33]

On August 5, 2009, Judge Gross ordered the appointment of a Trustee according to Chapter 11

On August 25, 2009, Edward Norman Cahn, was named as Chapter 11 trustee for SCO's cases.^[35]

On October 14, 2009, SCO Group announced that the company had terminated CEO Darl McBride's contract.

Following the appointment of the Chapter 11 trustee, on October 14, 2009, the SCO Group announced that the company has eliminated the Chief Executive Officer and President positions, consequently terminating Darl McBride's position,^[36]^[37] and that the remaining members of the current management team, including Chief Operating Officer, Jeff Hunsaker, Chief Financial Officer, Ken Nielsen and General Counsel, Ryan Tibbitts, will continue to work closely with the Chapter 11 trustee and his advisors.^[38] Jeff Hunsaker left SCO on November 13, 2009. SCO stated that they intended to hire him temporarily as a consultant.^[39]

On September 16, 2010, the SCO Group announced that it was "pursuing a sale of substantially all of the assets of its UNIX(R) business, including certain UNIX system V software products and related services",^[40] and requested that interested parties show "financial wherewithal to close on the transaction on or before October 5, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.",^[40] but as of December 2010, no announcement of any actual sale had been made.

Since May 2010, SCO Group has repeatedly cancelled its Bankruptcy hearings—as of December 2010, their next scheduled hearing is January 18, 2011.^[41]^[42]

On January 26, 2011, the SCO Group announced that UnXis Inc. has been selected to purchase their software product business.^[43]

The terms of sale are to be submitted to the bankruptcy court, where SCO's Chapter 11 case is also pending, for approval on {{date|March 2, 2011|mdy}}. The original date of the hearing has been postponed by two weeks.

On April 5, 2011, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily halted trading on SCO stock in response to SCO's failure to make required periodic filing for over two years.^[44]

On April 11, 2011, UnXis completed the purchase of its operating assets.^[45] The SCO Group's litigation rights against IBM and Novell did not transfer to UnXis.

SCO filed amendments to their certificates of incorporation on April 15, 2011. The SCO Group, Inc. was renamed TSG Group, Inc., and SCO Operations, Inc. became TSG Operations, Inc.^[46]

Products

SCO-Linux lawsuits and controversies

The SCO Group was, in 2004, involved in a dispute with various Linux vendors and users. In this campaign SCO "announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX".^[21] Although many are skeptical about their claims, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits and claims that so far have not been upheld by the courts. Thus far the impact on both Linux and Unix has been minimal. While making numerous public assertions that Linux infringes upon their copyrights, the lawsuits themselves concern contractual issues which are tangential to the issue of whether or not Linux infringes any copyrights. Further complicating the issue is the legitimacy of SCO claims concerning the ownership of System V Release 4.0 (SVR4) Unix copyrights. The success or failure of the claims will also have a profound effect on the financial future of The SCO Group, itself. SCO has, to date, made little headway in this dispute. In particular, in February 2005, Judge Dale Kimball, the judge in the SCO v. IBM case has stated:^[49]

On August 10, 2007, Judge Kimball, hearing the SCO v. Novell case, ruled that "...the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights". Novell was awarded summary judgments on a number of claims, and a number of SCO claims were denied. SCO was instructed to account for and pass to Novell an appropriate portion of income relating to SCOSource licences to Sun Microsystems and Microsoft. A number of matters are not disposed of by Judge Kimball's ruling, and the outcome of these are still pending.^[50]

On August 24, 2009, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its findings on SCO's appeal of the 2007 summary judgment. It reversed Judge Kimball's summary judgment rulings 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. It upheld Kimball's ruling on royalties due Novell. The reversed judgments were remanded to trial in Utah Federal court.^[51]

On March 30, 2010 a federal jury found unanimously that the copyrights to Unix and UnixWare did not transfer to SCO. Then on June 10, Judge Stewart granted all remaining claims of Novell, and denied all claims of SCO, closing the case.^[52]

SCO appealed for a second time on September 9, 2010. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling in all respects.^[57]

List of recent SCO lawsuits

Timeline

2002

On June 28, 2002 Darl McBride became the CEO of SCO; soon thereafter the company pursued litigation against IBM and Linux. McBride accused Linux of containing "line-by-line" copies of SCO's proprietary source code.

2004

In it, he describes his examination of SCO's claims of infringement, using both the "COMPARATOR" and "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."

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.^[53]

On July 1, 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 Monterey on the PowerPC architecture. In the same decision, the five-week jury trial date was set for February 2007.^[54]

On July 14, Groklaw obtained an email^[55] 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 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.

2006

On November 29 and December 1, two critical decisions were released. In the first, Judge Dale A. Kimball affirmed Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells' June 28, 2006 Order^[56] striking most of SCO's claimed evidence of code misuse as being too vague to be worth adjudicating. In the second, 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.^[57] SCO stock subsequently lost roughly 50% of its value in three days of exceptionally heavy trading.^[58]

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"^[50] and SCO to be in breach of its SVRX licensing agreement with Novell.^[59] 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. In response, on Monday, August 13, SCO stock fell over 70%, to 44 cents a share.^[60]

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 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.^[4] As a result of the petition for bankruptcy, all pending litigation was automatically stayed as per 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.^[61]^[62] 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.^[63] After Novell, IBM,^[64] and the United States Trustee^[65] objected to the deal, SCO withdrew the proposed sale on November 20, without prejudice.^[66]

2009

On August 24, 2009, the Tenth Circuit issued its findings on the appeal of the 2007 summary judgment. 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.^[51]

2010

In March, the SCO Group's case against Novell for slander of title was heard by a jury in Utah, which ruled in favor of Novell. The jury determined that the Unix copyrights never transferred to SCO. A lawyer for SCO responded 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 was obligated by the sales contract to transfer the copyright to SCO.^[67]

In June, Judge Ted Stewart decided that SCO was obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's purported claims against IBM and Sequent. The Court also judged 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.^[68]

The company filed an appeal of SCO v. Novell, scheduled to be heard on January 20, 2011.^[69]^[70]

2011

On August 30, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed SCO's loss to Novell in the second jury/bench trial.^[71] 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.

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.^[72]

Charts

SCO Forum

Beginning in 1987 Santa Cruz Operation had hosted an annual summer conference for the international Unix community in Santa Cruz. Originally called "The SCO XENIX 386 Developer Conference", it was later called "SCO Forum".

The SCO Forum conference tradition continued under Caldera Systems and Caldera International, but starting in 2002, the conference was moved to Las Vegas, where it was held yearly until the 2008 SCO Forum^[73] was the last one held.

After the SCO v. IBM legal battle began, SCO Forum presentations focused on presenting SCO's side. Speakers included Darl McBride and Rob Enderle. SCO continued the focus in the conference on technical presentations.^[74]

References

1. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2605421 |title=Canopy deal: Former CEO stays on board of SCO Group |author-last=Mims |author-first=Bob |date=2005-03-12 |publisher=The Salt Lake Tribune |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050312233019/http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2605421 |archive-date=2005-03-12}}
2. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/922758/000092275805000002/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml |title=STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP |date=2005-03-11 |work=EDGAR |publisher=The Securities and Exchange Commission}}
3. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/28/mydoom.spreadwed/index.html |title=Security firm: MyDoom worm fastest yet |date=2004-01-28 |publisher=CNN}}
4. ^¹²The SCO Group Files Chapter 11 to Protect Assets as It Addresses Potential Financial and Legal Challenges. The SCO Group, Inc. press release, September 14, 2007 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071006065244/http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=264124 |date=2007-10-06}}
5. ^"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
6. ^{{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}}
7. ^{{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}}
8. ^{{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"}}
9. ^{{cite book |author-last=Raymond |author-first=Eric S. |author-link=Eric S. Raymond |title=The Art of UNIX Programming |publisher=Addison–Wesley Professional |date=2003-10-03 |url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch02s01.html#id2879627 |isbn=978-0-13-142901-7}}
10. ^{{cite press release|title=SCO Announces Official Closing of Sale of two Divisions to Caldera|publisher=The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. |date=2001-05-07 |url=http://sec.edgar-online.com/2001/05/16/0001012870-01-500891/Section7.asp |access-date=2007-01-23 |dead-url=yes |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071001003614/http://sec.edgar-online.com/2001/05/16/0001012870-01-500891/Section7.asp |archive-date=2007-10-01}}
11. ^http://www.devicelogics.com/company/management.htm {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023215830/http://www.devicelogics.com/company/management.htm |date=2007-10-23}}
12. ^http://www.progeny.com/about/board.html#love {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928093359/http://www.progeny.com/about/board.html#love |date=2007-09-28}}
13. ^Caldera Creates Two {{sic|hide=y|Wholly|-}}Owned Subsidiaries
14. ^Groklaw – 2000 Caldera-Microsoft Settlement Surfaces in Novell v. Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit
15. ^{{cite web |author-first=Pamela |author-last=Jones |author-link=Pamela Jones |title=Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in Novell WordPerfect Case |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091120165256836 |work=Groklaw |date=2009-11-23 |access-date=2011-10-22 |dead-url=no |archive-url=https://archive.is/20130821080038/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091120165256836 |archive-date=2013-08-21 |quote=[…] exhibits attached to Microsoft's Memorandum of Law in support of Microsoft's cross motion for summary judgment in the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust litigation. We finally find out what Microsoft paid Caldera to settle the DrDOS litigation back in 2000: $280 million. We even get to read the settlement agreement. It's attached as an exhibit. […] The settlement terms were sealed for all these years, but […] now that mystery is solved. […] We also find out what Caldera/Canopy then paid Novell from that $280 million: $35.5 million at first, and then after Novell successfully sued Canopy in 2004, Caldera's successor-in-interest on this matter, an additional $17.7 million, according to page 16 of the Memorandum. Microsoft claims that Novell is not the real party in interest in this antitrust case, and so it can't sue Microsoft for the claims it has lodged against it, because, Microsoft says, Novell sold its antitrust claims to Caldera when it sold it DrDOS. So the exhibits are trying to demonstrate that Novell got paid in full, so to speak, via that earlier litigation. As a result, we get to read a number of documents from the Novell v. Canopy litigation. Novell responds it retained its antitrust claims in the applications market. […]}}
16. ^{{cite web |title=Settlement agreement - Microsoft Corporation and Caldera, Inc. reach agreement to settle antitrust lawsuit |author-first1=Thomas W. |author-last1=Burt |author-first2=Bryan W. |author-last2=Sparks |date=2000-01-07 |id=Case 1:05-cv-01087-JFM, Document 104-8, Filed 2009-11-13; NOV00107061-NOV00107071; LT2288-LT2298; Lan12S311263739.1; Exhibit A |type=Court document |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-8.pdf |access-date=2018-08-03 |quote=[…] Microsoft will pay to Caldera, by wire transfer in accordance with written instructions provided by Caldera, the amount of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000), as full settlement of all claims or potential claims covered by this agreement […]}} (NB. This document of the Caldera v. Microsoft case was an exhibit in the Novell v. Microsoft and Comes v. Microsoft cases.)
17. ^{{cite web |title=Microsoft's memorandum in opposition to Novell's renewed motion for summary judgement on Microsoft's affirmative defenses and in support of Microsoft's cross-motion for summary judgement |author-first1=Richard J. |author-last1=Wallis |author-first2=Steven J. |author-last2=Aeschbacher |author-first3=Mark M. |author-last3=Bettilyon |author-first4=G. Stewar |author-last4=Webb, Jr. |author-first5=David B. |author-last5=Tulchin |author-first6=Steven L. |author-last6=Holley |date=2009-11-13 |location=United States District Court, District of Maryland |type=Court document |id=Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. JFM-05-1087 |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-2.pdf |access-date=2018-08-03 |page=16 |quote=[…] Microsoft paid $280 million to Caldera to settle the case, and $35.5 million of the settlement proceeds were provided by Caldera to Novell as a so-called "royalty." […] Dissatisfied with that amount, Novell filed suit in June 2000 against Caldera (succeeded by The Canopy Group), alleging that Novell was entitled to even more. […] Novell ultimately prevailed, adding $17.7 million to its share of the monies paid by Microsoft to Caldera, for a total of more than $53 million […]}}
18. ^Certificate of Incorporation of Caldera Systems, Inc.. 2000-03-02 ( ).
19. ^{{cite press release |title=Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, Turbolinux Partner To Create UnitedLinux, And Produce A Uniform Version Of Linux For Business |publisher=UnitedLinux |date=2002-05-30 |url=http://unitedlinux.com/en/press/pr053002.html |access-date=2007-03-27}}
20. ^{{cite web |url=http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cef9ao.2.15|title=Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) |access-date=2008-05-03 |date=2007-07-16 |publisher=United States Patent and Trademark Office}}
21. ^¹{{cite web |title=SCO Registers UNIX Copyrights and Offers UNIX License |url=http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=114170 |access-date=2007-04-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100102232443/http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=114170 |archive-date=2010-01-02 |dead-url=yes}}
22. ^{{cite web |title=SCO lawsuit against Linux financed by Microsoft |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-7344_3-5450515.html |access-date=2007-05-26 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20130119195007/http%3A%2F%2Fnews.cnet.com%2F2100-7344_3-5450515.html |archive-date=2013-01-19 |dead-url=yes}}
23. ^{{cite web |title=The SCO Group, Inc. Receives Notice From Nasdaq Regarding Potential Delisting and Intends to Appeal |date=2005-02-17 |location=Lindon, UT, USA |via=PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX |publisher=The SCO Group |url=https://tech-insider.org/sco-v-ibm-et-al/research/2005/0217.html |access-date=2008-05-20 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20180908091240/https://tech-insider.org/sco-v-ibm-et-al/research/2005/0217.html |archive-date=2018-09-08}}
24. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095013407009308/v29626e8vk.htm|title=Form 8K: Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing. |access-date=2007-04-28}}
25. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095013407013275/v31118e8vk.htm |title=Form 8K: Item 8.01 Other Events |access-date=2007-06-13}}
26. ^{{cite web |url=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071227/lath028.html?.v=101 |title=SCO Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter |date=2007-12-27 |access-date=2007-12-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071229224718/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071227/lath028.html?.v=101 |archive-date=2007-12-29}}
27. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080214125705140 |title=SCO announces reorganization plan – $100 M from SNCP & "partners from the Middle East", to go private – Updated |publisher=Groklaw |date=2008-02-14 |access-date=2008-02-15}}
28. ^{{cite web |url=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080214/lath092.html?.v=101 |title=The SCO Group Announces Reorganization Plan to Include $100 Million Financing by Stephen Norris Capital Partners |date=2008-02-14 |access-date=2008-02-14 |publisher=Yahoo Finance |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080220025828/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080214/lath092.html?.v=101 |archive-date=2008-02-20}}
29. ^{{cite web |url=http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695266913,00.html |title=Insolvent SCO scraps its reorganization plan |access-date=2008-04-03 |date=2008-04-03 |publisher=Deseret Morning News}}
30. ^The SCO Group Files Formal Reorganization Plan With Bankruptcy Court {{dead link|date=September 2011}}
31. ^Groklaw – U.S. Trustee Moves to Convert SCO Bankruptcy to Chapter 7 – Updated
32. ^SCO Group strikes deal just before bankruptcy hearing {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090619082227/http://www.sltrib.com/technology/ci_12595750 |date=2009-06-19}}
33. ^SCO vs. Linux: New investor rescues SCO from bankruptcy {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090621160723/http://www.h-online.com/open/SCO-vs-Linux-New-investor-rescues-SCO-from-bankruptcy--/news/113540 |date=2009-06-21}}
34. ^http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/SCOGBK-891.pdf
35. ^(SCO) Search Dockets {{webarchive|url=https://archive.is/20120707041812/http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/docket/docketlist.aspx?pk=8ce798da-b105-4a4c-808a-b1214f0ea6d5 |date=2012-07-07}}
36. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000114420409053428/v163103_8k.htm |title=The SCO Group, Inc.: FORM 8-K: 2009-10-14 |access-date=2009-10-19 |date=2009-10-14 |work=EDGAR |publisher=The Securities and Exchange Commission}}
37. ^{{cite web |url=http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091019/scoxq.pk8-k.html |title=Change in Directors or Principal Officers, Other Events, Financial Statements |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091022133843/http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091019/scoxq.pk8-k.html |archive-date=2009-10-22 |deadurl=yes}}
38. ^The SCO Group, Inc. – Current Report SECDatabase.com, Form Type: 8-K, Filing Date: 2009-10-19
39. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000114420409058996/v166232_8k.htm |title=FORM 8-K: Item 5.02: Departure of Directors or Certain Officers |access-date=2009-11-16 |date=2009-11-13 |work=EDGAR |publisher=Securities and Exchange Commission}}
40. ^¹{{cite press release |publisher=The SCO Group, Inc. |date=2010-09-16 |title=The SCO Group Announces UNIX Asset Sale |url=http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=508086 |access-date=2010-12-29 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5vLNwg8N7?url=http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=508086 |archive-date=2010-12-29 |dead-url=yes}}
41. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=SCO-BK-timeline |title=SCO Bankruptcy Timeline |author-first=Jones |author-last=Pamela |publisher=Groklaw |access-date=2010-12-29}}
42. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_s_page=SCO-BK-timeline |title=List of stories referenced in the "SCO Bankruptcy Timeline" |author-first=Jones |author-last=Pamela |author-link=Pamela Jones |publisher=Groklaw |access-date=2010-12-29 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20130221160842/http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_s_page=SCO-BK-timeline |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2013-02-21}}
43. ^{{Cite press release |title=UnXis Group Acquires SCO |publisher=UnXis, Inc. |date=2011-01-26 |url=http://www.sco.com/UnXisPressRelease%2820110126%29.pdf |access-date=2011-04-06 |dead-url=yes |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331121314/http://www.sco.com/UnXisPressRelease%2820110126%29.pdf |archive-date=2012-03-31}}
44. ^{{cite journal |title=Securities and Exchange Commission Suspends Trading in the Securities of Fourteen Issuers for Failure to Make Required Periodic Filings |journal=SEC News Digest |date=2011-04-05 |issue=2011-65 |url=https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2011/dig040511.htm |access-date=2011-04-06}}
45. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/51606446-79/unix-sco-bolandz-bankruptcy.html.csp |title=SCO closes sale of Unix system to Nevada company |access-date=2011-04-11 |author-last=Harvey |author-first=Tom |date=2011-04-11 |newspaper=The Salt Lake Tribune}}
46. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SCOGBK-1271-2.pdf |title=Certificates of Amendment to the Debtors' Certificates of Incorporation (Exhibit A) |publisher=Secretary of State of the State of Delaware/Groklaw |date=2011-05-06 |access-date=2011-05-07}}
47. ^http://www.sco.com/developers/marketplace/faq.html {{dead link|date=September 2011}}
48. ^The SCO Group, Inc. | Products | MeInc{{dead link|date=November 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}
49. ^The SCO Group, Inc. vs. International Business Machines, Inc. case number 2:03cv0294 United States District Court for the District of Utah doc #398
50. ^¹MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK
51. ^¹http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-4217.pdf{{dead link|date=September 2011}}
52. ^NOVELL: Novell News » Blog Archive » United States District Court Judge Issues Final Judgment Confirming Novell Ownership of UNIX Copyrights and Denying Other SCO Claims
53. ^http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-456decl.pdf
54. ^{{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=2007-08-11}}
55. ^{{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=2007-08-11}}
56. ^http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-884.pdf
57. ^{{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=2007-08-11}}
58. ^{{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 |publisher=Google |access-date=2007-06-01}}
59. ^[https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070812-sco-never-owned-unix-copyrights-owes-novell-95-percent-of-unix-royalties.html SCO never owned UNIX copyrights, owes Novell 95 percent of UNIX royalties]. Ars Technica, 2007-08-13.
60. ^[https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070813-investors-bailing-on-sco-stock-scox-plummets.html Investors bailing on SCO stock, SCOX plummets]. Ars Technica, 2007-08-14.
61. ^The SCO Group Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter. The SCO Group, Inc. press release, 2007-09-19 {{dead link|date=September 2011}}
62. ^{{cite web |url=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070928/laf019.html?.v=101 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20120701174313/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070928/laf019.html?.v=101 |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2012-07-01 |title=SCO Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter |access-date=2007-09-30}}
63. ^{{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}}
64. ^{{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=2008-02-15}}
65. ^{{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}}
66. ^{{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}}
67. ^{{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}}
68. ^{{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}}
69. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=NovellAppealTL |title=SCO v. Novell Appeal Timeline |author-first=Jones |author-last=Pamela |author-link=Pamela Jones |publisher=Groklaw |access-date=2010-12-29}}
70. ^{{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=Jones |author-last=Pamela |author-link=Pamela Jones |publisher=Groklaw |access-date=2010-12-29 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20130221163428/http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_s_page=NovellAppealTL&use_tag=none |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2013-02-21}}
71. ^¹{{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.}}
72. ^http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1162.pdf
73. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080407141045566|title=SCO Forum 2008 Announced by Hunsaker; Where's Darl? |access-date=2008-05-20 |publisher=groklaw.net}}
74. ^{{cite web |author-last=Emigh |author-first=Jacqueline |url=http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/5965/1/ |title=SCO Forum: Dueling with Linux & Microsoft (SCO Against the World) |date=2005-08-15 |access-date=2008-05-20 |publisher=LinuxPlanet}}