SCO Successor Xinuos Asks Court to Rehear Its Claims Against IBM/Red Hat Over Project Monterey (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0185123368
- News link: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/26/08/24/037241/sco-successor-xinuos-asks-court-to-rehear-its-claims-against-ibmred-hat-over-project-monterey
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/08/24/ancient-who-owns-linux-case-now-has-one-foot-very-deep-in-the-grave/5291513
> 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
About Fsck'n time... (Score:2)
Those parasites at SCO made a living litigating BULLSHIT claims on licenses they "acquired" I hope this is the last of it. They should have DiaF years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the elephant in the corner of the room was always that SCO never even owned those rights to unix to begin with , it was licensing them from Novell and Novell where *very unhappy* with SCOs antics as the licensing text specifically forbade this sort of nonsense without Novell's go-ahead which they definitely did not give (I assume MicroFocus now have those rights since they swallowed Novell a decade ago. Actually googling it, Microfocus got swallowed by "Open Text". Who the fuck are open text?! Their wi
Re: (Score:2)
"got swallowed by "Open Text". Who the fuck are open text?! "
I heard about them a long time ago, Canadian software company spun out of a project that began at the University of Waterloo.
I have no idea how they've made so much money starting out in "document management" or whatever the hell they're supposed to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Attachmate, which swallowed Novell and spun of for instance SuSE Linux before being itself acquired by Micro Focus. SuSE S.A. is now a separate company in Luxembourg, and maybe, they are holding the original UNIX licenses, as it would fit into their portfolio.
Career (Score:2)
Without caring enough to actually look it up, I wonder: have any of the attorneys involved have been on this case since the beginning? Can you imagine working this case for 25 years? If so, maybe some of them are trying to keep the case alive, hoping to retire before it ends?
I'm 90% kidding, but the idea cracks me up.
PJ must be losing her mind over this! (Score:2)
23 years since she founded Groklaw specifically to cover this lawsuit and it's STILL not over??
WTAF??
SCO? In 2026? Inconceivable! (Score:1)
What year is this? Itâ(TM)s so wild that SCO is still doing this same bullshit after 30 fucking years!!!!
Jesus! I know that donâ(TM)t have anything else to do, but itâ(TM)s hard to believe that thereâ(TM)s anyone at SCO that would be willing to dust off their parentsâ(TM) failed lawsuits, but apparently there is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, almost as old as the Slashdot "smart quote" bug :-D.
FINALLY (Score:1)
Man, when this is over, I am going to pour some hot grits into my pants in tribute to a naked and petrified Natalie Portman. Closure! :p
so this is how it works... (Score:2)
This is essentially a high-stakes gamble. The payout is potentially millions, so they just try whatever. And I bet if it all turns against them and they're forced to pay legal costs etc. they'll just file for bancruptsy.
We're obviously dealing with the undead here (Score:2)
This company just keeps getting back up out of its grave. Maybe a wooden stake is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird corporate goons trying to recover the potentially billions of lost value from losing every vexatious lawsuit they've launched in 20+ years by.... doing more vexatious lawsuits.