Editing United Linux (section)

==Ending==
{{SCO Controversy}}
On January 20, 2004, [[SCO Group|SCO]] filed a [[SCO v. Novell|lawsuit]], against Novell, the then-current owner of SuSE.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-0.pdf | title=SCO's Complaint In the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah |website=GrokLaw | date=2004-01-20}}</ref>

The end of United Linux was announced in a [[Novell]] press conference on January 22, 2004 by Richard Seibt, president of the SUSE division. The stated reason was that the [[SCO v. IBM]] lawsuit and The [[SCO Group|SCO Group's]] public attacks on Linux had made the alliance unworkable.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/UnitedLinux-RIP/ | title=UnitedLinux, RIP | date=2004-01-23 | publisher=eWeek}}</ref>

It emerged that no real work had been done on United Linux since soon after [[SCO v. IBM]] had started, and that SUSE had ceased active participation around this time. The last United Linux announcements were of [[Oracle Corporation]] support for it on 13 March 2003, and of [[AMD64]] [[Central processing unit|CPU]] support on 22 April 2003.

While some have reported that UnitedLinux ended, in fact the group did not gain consensus to dissolve the partnership and the legal entity remains in effect.

The [[SCO Group|SCO]] v. Novell complaint was amended on February 3, 2006 to add copyright infringement claims, relating to Novell's distribution of SuSE Linux.<ref name="novell-96">{{cite web | url=http://groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-96.pdf | title=SCO's Second Amended Complaint |website=GrokLaw | date=2006-02-03}}</ref>  Novell responded on April 10 by filing a Request for Arbitration with the ICC, and asking that [[SCO Group|SCO's]] claims be stayed in the district court.  They argued in the Request that through the MTA and JDC, "the UnitedLinux members agreed that each member would have an irrevocable, perpetual, and worldwide license to use and unlimitedly exploit any intellectual property rights of the other members in the UnitedLinux Software, which would be transferred to the LLC for this very purpose."<ref name="novell-108" /><ref>{{cite web | url=http://groklaw.net/pdf/NovellMotStay.pdf | title=Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Subject to Arbitration |website=GrokLaw | date=2006-04-10}}</ref>  Novell's motion to stay was granted in part, for those of [[SCO Group|SCO's]] claims relating to SuSE.<ref name="novell-139" />

On September 14, 2007, [[SCO Group|SCO]] filed for bankruptcy,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://groklaw.net/pdf/SCOGBKMain.pdf | title=Voluntary Petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy |website=GrokLaw | date=2007-09-14}}</ref> and on November 13, the court ruled at [[SCO Group|SCO's]] request that the arbitration was [[automatic stay|automatically stayed]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/SCOGBK-204.pdf | title=Order Granting Debtor the SCO Group Inc.'s Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay |website=GrokLaw | date=2007-11-13}}</ref>

SuSE filed a motion to lift this stay on November 10, 2009.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/SCOGBK-951.pdf | title=Motion for Relief from Stay To Complete International Arbitration |website=GrokLaw | date=2009-11-10}}</ref>  However, [[SCO Group|SCO]] objected on December 15,<ref name="scogbk-992">{{cite web | url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SCOGBK-992.pdf | title=Objection to SUSE's Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration |website=GrokLaw | date=2009-12-15}}</ref> and SUSE's motion was denied on January 15, 2010.<ref name="scogbk-1037">{{cite web | url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SCOGBK-1037.pdf | title=Order Denying Suse's Motion For Relief From The Automatic Stay To Complete International Arbitration |website=GrokLaw | access-date=2010-01-15 | date=2010-01-15}}</ref>