against DaimlerChrysler. IBM files second amended counterclaims. April 2004 The Red Hat v. SCO case is stayed until resolution of the SCO v. IBM case. May 2004 IBM files a 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 "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." Novell files a motion to dismiss. December 2004SCO v. DaimlerChrysler case is dismissed without 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. June 2005 On June 20, expert Brian W. Kernighan filed a declaration on behalf of IBM.