SCO v. IBM settlement deal is done, but zombie case shuffles on elsewhere
- Reference: 1630303087
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/08/30/sco_tsg_vs_ibm_settlement/
- Source link:
The case commenced in 2003, but its roots go even deeper.In 1998 IBM, the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO – a vendor of UNIX for x86 CPUs) and others teamed to create Project Monterey, with the aim of developing a version of UNIX that worked on multiple hardware platforms.
Which is just what the Linux community had started doing, too.
[1]
By 2001, IBM decided Linux was the future and quit Project Monterey, even acquiring some of the participants. By then Big Blue had created an experimental cut of its own UNIX-like AIX operating system that used some SCO code. But once Monterey was abandoned, IBM contributed some of its IP to Linux.
[2]
[3]
SCO took exception to those contributions, as it felt IBM had given away its assets to the open-source Linux code base.
Cue lengthy and astoundingly labyrinthine litigation, because even though SCO went bust its IP lived on under new owners. IBM kept fighting and entities that inherited SCO's IP kept trying new angles, finding new funding, or both. One player, Xinuos, [4]filed its own claim against IBM in March 2021. Big Blue dismissed the claims as meritless.
[5]
The case persisted because the prize is enormous – a definitive win could potentially mean the winner has a chance to claim partial ownership of Linux. Seeing as Linux is at the heart of a billion smartphones a year, plus countless other devices, the royalty stream could be colossal.
But that dream appears to have died – for one heir of SCO, at least. Documents filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware last week suggest a settlement payment of just $14.25 million will see the matter closed.
[6]Yep, the 'Who owns Linux?' case is back from the dead
[7]Bane of Silicon Valley patents sets its sights on Rackspace and NetApp
[8]Zombie SCO rises from the grave again
[9]SCO's last arguments in 'Who owns Linux?' case vs. IBM knocked out
The filing that led to that conclusion was made by bankruptcy Trustee of TSG Group – the name SCO gave itself after selling its IP to Xinuos in 2021.
The [10]motion for settlement states that, if agreed, it concludes litigation between TSG and IBM.
The trustee recommends the settlement because it is felt that "ultimate success of the Trustee's claims against IBM is uncertain". While the trustee could litigate the claims, it would be expensive to do so – more so if IBM appealed.
[11]
"The Settlement Agreement provides an immediate and substantial monetary recovery and creates important liquidity for the benefit of all creditors and claimants," the document states.
The documents state that Big Blue is good with this – so one strand of this ancient case looks set to conclude.
The Xinuos strand, however, remains unresolved. Therefore the matter of whether or not IBM has a case to answer also remains unresolved. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YSysVcwLkH@sjgTQaprMEgAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YSysVcwLkH@sjgTQaprMEgAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YSysVcwLkH@sjgTQaprMEgAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YSysVcwLkH@sjgTQaprMEgAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/06/xinuous/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/23/realtime_data_suit_rackspace_netapp/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/30/zombie_sco_rises_from_the_grave_iagaini/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2016/02/10/scos_last_arguments_in_who_owns_linux_case_vs_ibm_knocked_out/
[10] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/08/30/tsg_sco_ibm_motion_of_settlement.pdf
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YSysVcwLkH@sjgTQaprMEgAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Does anyone know which components form this dispute? A summary of the case for those only mildly interested at this stage and who can’t be bothered to wade through all the legalese? I would have thought it should be straightforward to resolve - just show us the source code. If it’s really in Linux we can see it anyway, but if there’s concern that revealing SCOs hand might release proprietary code then we’ll know that the SCO zombies were just having us on.
In any event, as long as it isn’t in the kernel, if the court case is lost then surely the solution is to replace any contentious modules…
There are bits that both parties copied from FreeBSD. It is perfectly legal for both of them to do this.
SCO Unix today is basically a re-badged copy of FreeBSD 10, as they ditched their legacy codebase.
Also, remember the three hurdles they have to overcome:
1. They don't own the copyright to Unix. Novel/SuSE owns it. Not sure which one now with the recent reorganisation, but it isn't SCO.
2. They published their own copy of Linux in the form of Caldera. Therefore they would have granted a licence to any copyright they might own under the terms of the GPL.
3. They need to prove that any code was written by them and not by for example FreeBSD.
SCO Unix today is basically a re-badged copy of FreeBSD 10, as they ditched their legacy codebase.
To be fair that isn't really accurate. It's FreeBSD kernel with a few extras for ABI compatibility. The userland on top of that is the original, not FreeBSD.
They need to prove that any code was written by them and not by for example FreeBSD
Which they spectacularly failed to do in a presentation made (as I recall) in one of their SCOsource annual conferences in front of a significant portion of their developer base.
They also tried to claim in court that SGI was violating their copyright for a kernel-based memory allocator used in XFS (used in SGI's Irix Unix, and migrated to Linux when XFS was ported to that platform), only to discover the hard way that that code had never been compiled into the kernel, and that the offending source had actually been removed from the Linux kernel codebase years beforehand.
it’s been a long time since I was actively following this case, but as far as I know the entity calling itself SCO was always unwilling (unable?) to actually divulge this. It was always the nebulous umbrella term “Intellectual Property”.
Who had something to gain from continuing this charade?
This was never about royalties as it rapidly became apparent that there was no realistic claim to be had.
This was about maintaining a potential Bogeyman for Linux.
Now, can anyone see a smoking gun?
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2331322/microsoft-behind--50-million-sco-investment.html
Re: Who had something to gain from continuing this charade?
As conspiracy theories go, that one has always been tepid at best. And now, with Redmond in bed with Canonical, it's leaning on the farcical to even bring it up even in jest.
In the lawsuit, they were asked that. Their response was vague so IBM had most of it (all of it?) thrown out. This left them with basically nothing to claim...
SCO:
More resurrections than Dr Who's The Master.
Now what?
It’s like Forrest has stopped running.
Full of Regret
If only I'd bought a licence for Linux when it was offered by SCO.
Woe is me. Woe is me.
Re: Full of Regret
You can get one easily by downloading a copy of Caldera OpenLinux.
"the winner has a chance to claim partial ownership of Linux"
Um, how is that possible ?
Linux is FOSS. I don't care if a company contributes, it's still FOSS.
Nobody can claim FOSS.
Re: "the winner has a chance to claim partial ownership of Linux"
They are not claiming they own FOSS, they are claiming FOSS is built from what they own.
They have never succeeded in proving this. In fact, they tend to get all waffley when asked to produce that evidence.
From what I can tell, the lawsuits are basically fishing expeditions. Or, if you prefer, throwing shit at the wall to see if anything sticks.
The funny thing is that, after all this time, and all the money they have thrown at it, they will never turn a profit even if they succeed !
Why not? I'm glad you asked ... it's because the world at large will stop using whatever code some idiot Judge decides belongs to them ... we will simply code around it, as if it never existed in the first place.
This will run and run because...
...the upside, or so the suits have convinced themselves, is a huge payday from Linux using companies and the downside is corporate bankruptcy, which in the USA of America is no deterrent[1].
[1] Bankruptcy laws provide extensive protections for the bankrupt entity. Ask the people of Armley Yorkshire etc, etc..
Re: This will run and run because...
It's going to continue until they run into a technically competent Judge dismissing it with prejudice.
Where is Pamela Jones when you REALLY need an explanation?
Just saying!
Legal blackmail
That some nice products you have there, that may contain traces of our IP.
It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
The Atomic Wedgie : http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20160814