SCO Successor Xinuos Asks Court to Rehear Its Claims Against IBM/Red Hat Over Project Monterey (theregister.com)
(Tuesday August 25, 2026 @11:00AM (EditorDavid)
from the courting-disaster dept.)
The long legal battle over ownership of Linux "is closer than ever to ending," [1]reports the Register , "after a panel of three judges ruled a claim against IBM and Red Hat isn't valid, and that time has expired for further action."
> In 2021, an heir to SCO [2]settled with IBM for $14.25 million — a sum that reflects the fact SCO had for years failed to produce strong evidence to back its claims. Another of SCO's legal successors, Xinuos, filed a new claim that IBM should be on the hook because Big Blue knew it did not own the code it contributed to Linux but instead had a non-exclusive license to use it. Xinuos argued that when IBM contributed Project Monterey code to Linux [25 years ago], it breached that license.
>
> Xinuos eventually took that argument to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York — and failed to convince it that IBM and Red Hat had a case to answer. Xinuos appealed, and on August 10th the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [3]decided [PDF] not to revisit the District Court's decision, agreeing that the original legalese governing Project Monterey means it's too late to re-litigate the matter. The Appeals Court also agreed that Xinuos tried to frame the case as a licensing issue but failed, instead arguing that the issue was really about ownership.
>
> That ain't all, folks, because Xinuos intends to file a petition to have the case re-heard by the full bench of the Court of Appeals. That hardly ever happens, unless the court finds significant errors or major legal issues that make a rehearing worthwhile. Law firm Kaplan [4]says the Second Circuit has allowed reviews of less than 0.03 percent of the cases it has handled. So perhaps this matter is now close to a final resolution.
Back in 2000 Slashdot [5]interviewed one of the presidents of SCO .
[1] https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/08/24/ancient-who-owns-linux-case-now-has-one-foot-very-deep-in-the-grave/5291513
[2] https://www.theregister.com/software/2021/08/30/sco-v-ibm-settlement-deal-is-done-but-zombie-case-shuffles-on-elsewhere/592679
[3] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.aa1a7e3d-39a0-439a-b5e1-8abbc67cb8a2/gov.uscourts.ca2.aa1a7e3d-39a0-439a-b5e1-8abbc67cb8a2.66.0.pdf
[4] https://thekaplanlawfirm.com/federal-appellate-litigation/
[5] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/05/05/0713234/sco-answers-questions-about-linux
> In 2021, an heir to SCO [2]settled with IBM for $14.25 million — a sum that reflects the fact SCO had for years failed to produce strong evidence to back its claims. Another of SCO's legal successors, Xinuos, filed a new claim that IBM should be on the hook because Big Blue knew it did not own the code it contributed to Linux but instead had a non-exclusive license to use it. Xinuos argued that when IBM contributed Project Monterey code to Linux [25 years ago], it breached that license.
>
> Xinuos eventually took that argument to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York — and failed to convince it that IBM and Red Hat had a case to answer. Xinuos appealed, and on August 10th the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [3]decided [PDF] not to revisit the District Court's decision, agreeing that the original legalese governing Project Monterey means it's too late to re-litigate the matter. The Appeals Court also agreed that Xinuos tried to frame the case as a licensing issue but failed, instead arguing that the issue was really about ownership.
>
> That ain't all, folks, because Xinuos intends to file a petition to have the case re-heard by the full bench of the Court of Appeals. That hardly ever happens, unless the court finds significant errors or major legal issues that make a rehearing worthwhile. Law firm Kaplan [4]says the Second Circuit has allowed reviews of less than 0.03 percent of the cases it has handled. So perhaps this matter is now close to a final resolution.
Back in 2000 Slashdot [5]interviewed one of the presidents of SCO .
[1] https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/08/24/ancient-who-owns-linux-case-now-has-one-foot-very-deep-in-the-grave/5291513
[2] https://www.theregister.com/software/2021/08/30/sco-v-ibm-settlement-deal-is-done-but-zombie-case-shuffles-on-elsewhere/592679
[3] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.aa1a7e3d-39a0-439a-b5e1-8abbc67cb8a2/gov.uscourts.ca2.aa1a7e3d-39a0-439a-b5e1-8abbc67cb8a2.66.0.pdf
[4] https://thekaplanlawfirm.com/federal-appellate-litigation/
[5] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/05/05/0713234/sco-answers-questions-about-linux