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. 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 Monterey on the PowerPC architecture. In the same decision, the five-week jury trial date was set for February 2007. 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 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. 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 (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 striking most of SCO's claimed evidence of code misuse as being too vague to