Zombie 'Who Owns Unix?' Lawsuit Comes Alive Again (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0184332990
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/07/06/1844204/zombie-who-owns-unix-lawsuit-comes-alive-again
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/07/06/zombie-who-owns-unix-lawsuit-comes-alive-again/5266761
> [T]he roots of the case are the 1998 alliance between IBM and a company called the Santa Cruz Operation which sold a version of UNIX for x86 CPUs. Those two companies, plus Intel and Sequent, created "Project Monterey" -- an effort to create a unified version of UNIX that could run on multiple processors. By 2001, Project Monterey was close to delivering a unified UNIX, an achievement made possible by blending code from IBM and SCO.
>
> By then, a little project called "Linux" already ran on multiple processors. Big Blue decided Linux was the future and bailed from Project Monterey -- then allegedly contributed some Monterey code to the open-source project and to its own AIX and Z operating systems. SCO felt it owned some of that code, so sued IBM.
>
> SCO and its successors struggled to survive, but interested parties kept the lawsuit alive because the chance to emerge as owner of parts of the Linux codebase, and IBM's code, had the potential to turn into a colossal payday. The case and its successors ended in 2021, with a settlement that saw litigants agree to end the matter without IBM admitting fault. But by then, SCO had sold its software to a biz called Xinuos that decided to fight on.
>
> The Xinuos case has burbled along quietly since, and on June 22nd reached the milestone of [2]a hearing . The matter has become a little more modern, if only because this hearing was held online and the presiding judge appeared to unwittingly be on mute at one point. But the arguments otherwise seemed to revisit Project Monterey, debated the relevance of past litigation, contested who owned what, when they owned it, and how they could prove it. Xinuos argued IBM never had a license for SCO code. Big Blue argued that it did nothing wrong.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/07/06/zombie-who-owns-unix-lawsuit-comes-alive-again/5266761
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/105538/xinuos-inc-v-international-business-machines-corporation/?
Yawn... (Score:2)
Still trying to extort money from IBM after all this time. Nothing like a business model made up entirely of rent seeking.
Re: Yawn... (Score:2)
Wait, are you talking about IBM or SCO?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, IBM has jumped on the rent seeking train with both feet as well.
Wayback Time! (Score:4, Informative)
I remember this being covered extensively on Slashdot and Groklaw (Groklaw is gone, and replaced with some crypto scam site). Pamela Jones was the writer (probably a pseudonym) giving insights into the trials for years. Eventually burning out on it as she tried to remain relevant after the case went away. I'm shocked it is back... but I probably shouldn't be.
Fun times.
Re: (Score:2)
PJ ran Groklaw for a decade, shuttering it in 2013.
in 2010 she received a Pioneer award from the EFF for blogging about legal issues.
In 2005 someone tried to track her down and reportedly found her mother in CT but not PJ herself.
Re: (Score:3)
Here it is, from the wayback machine itself!!
[1] Groklaw [archive.org]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240704230252/http://www.groklaw.net/
Re: Wayback Time! (Score:2)
Now we can just ask Grok about law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm sure Grok will give a fact-based response to a question about law.
Re: Wayback Time! (Score:2)
My recollection is that PJ finally ended Groklaw over privacy / anonymity concerns about email. But Iâ(TM)m sure she must have also felt burned out by that point.
Not this shit again (Score:2)
As above, not this shit again.
AKA "The Stupid Lawsuit That Will Not Die", funded by imbeciles and greedy scumbags.
Re: (Score:1)
But if they can get it to the current SCOTUS with appropriate "incentives" to the YOB (Yuge Orange Buffoon), then this time the trick might work. "That trick never works" might have a limit after all.
"A nonpartisan Justice may compel two junior partisan Justices to recuse themselves" is the trick I most wish would work.
While we're on the topic of corruption... Meanwhile, back at the World Cup, the last host country has eliminated itself. No possible path to an untainted victory. Let me be clear that I mean
Re: (Score:2)
> But if they can get it to the current SCOTUS with appropriate "incentives" to the YOB (Yuge Orange Buffoon), then this time the trick might work. "That trick never works" might have a limit after all.
Yes, they'll fail upward in the courts until it gets to the Supremes and they'll rule that SCO/Xinuos is right, with the effect of making all Linux installs everywhere "illegal" and "infringing".
No, I'm not joking. Having every install of every Linux derivative suddenly owe money/royalties is a vulture capitalist's wet dream.
> Meanwhile, back at the World Cup,
The what cup??
Re: (Score:3)
as an adolescent i was taught that someone who'll do anything for money is a prostitute.
it was more than a decade before i realized that lawyers are a better fit for that description
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the world's second oldest profession for a reason.
Have you done it with two layers at the same time? (Score:2)
Oldie but goodie: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7QtRCGQmrc
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope that the judge sanctions Xinuos's legal team into oblivion. Given all that has gone before, it should be easy to establish bad faith on their part. Not to mention that kicking a sleeping wolverine (IBM) is unlikely to be ... wise.
broken legal system (Score:2)
This legal system is a shit joke.
It's designed to fail under the weight of its own bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. That collapse cannot come soon enough. Time for the world to move on.
Re: broken legal system (Score:2)
Just like the guy who wanted to buy a landfill to recover his lost bitcoin wallet, whenever there is just a hint of getting rich people will respond with absurd actions.
Correction (Score:2)
> SCO and its successors struggled to survive, but interested parties kept the lawsuit alive [ ... ]
You misspelled "Microsoft."
Speaking of which: Is Micros~1 still shaking down companies using Linux for royalties over unspecified patents they allegedly hold?
Re: (Score:2)
> You misspelled "Microsoft."
You misspelled "Microslop"
Dickens would eat this up... (Score:2)
This has all the hallmarks of a modern-day novel 'tragedy' along the lines of [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce [wikipedia.org] Spoiler: at the end of that case, the court costs have consumed all the income of the estate, and the 'winners' get nothing....
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce
THAT should be settled by an MMA match.... (Score:2)
In that case, it's as fair as any court hearing. No one knows who owned what and when.
If you have a arbitrary outcome anyway, you can at least have some fun.
SCO and IBM (Score:2)
they both suck.
Re: (Score:2)
And someone still has decided to beat a dead horse.
Respecting copyright is an important part of FOSS (Score:3)
> they both suck.
True. But copyright law has nothing to do with who sucks. IF Linux has "Project Monterey" code in it, remove it and replace it with non infringing code. Just like a commercial company like IBM that had GPL code in it would be expected to do.
It's not about good / bad. It's about respecting / not respecting copyright. Respecting copyright is a very important part of FOSS.
Re: (Score:2)
IF Linux has "Project Monterey" code in it
They can't find it after 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
> IF Linux has "Project Monterey" code in it
> They can't find it after 30 years.
They only recently applied AI coding agents to the task. ;-)
Re: Respecting copyright is an important part of F (Score:2)
My recollection from the old Groklaw days is that the heart of the disagreement turned out to not even be code, but API definitions. SCO claimed to own the definitions of some APIs, but (when finally pushed to be very specific) not their implementations.