Zombie 'Who Owns Unix?' Lawsuit Comes Alive Again
8 108The long-running SCO/IBM Unix and Linux ownership dispute has resurfaced yet again, this time through SCO successor Xinuos, which is trying to pursue old license and copyright claims tied to Project Monterey. "The core issue seems to be whether Xinuos even has the right to litigate the matter, or if some ancient legalese in the original agreements means the window for legal argument has long since expired," reports The Register. From the report: [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 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.
8 comments
Respecting copyright is an important part of FOSS (Score: 5, Informative)
by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @05:03PM (#66225642)
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:Respecting copyright is an important part of FO (Score: 5, )
by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @05:42PM (#66225730)
IF Linux has "Project Monterey" code in it
They can't find it after 30 years.
Re:Respecting copyright is an important part of FO (Score: 5, Funny)
by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @05:54PM (#66225748)
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 FO (Score: 5, Interesting)
by belmolis ( 702863 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @10:02PM (#66226074)
As I recall in discovery it turned out that SCO had actually hired an expert to compare its code to Linux and he had reported that he was unable to find any overlap. The SCO claims to own Linux code were in bad faith.
Wayback Time! (Score: 5, Informative)
by Spackler ( 223562 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @04:13PM (#66225546)
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:Not this shit again (Score: 5, Informative)
by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @04:42PM (#66225604)
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
Holy thread resurrection, Batman! (Score: 5, Funny)
by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @06:07PM (#66225760)
While we're at it, why don't we pour hot grits on a Beowulf cluster while Natalie Portman confirms that BSD is dying?
This was already decided way back when (Score: 5, Informative)
by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Monday July 06, 2026 @07:53PM (#66225910)
This was already decided during the original trial. Two things will prevent Xinuos from succeeding:
1. SCO never had a license to the code they claim to own. They had a license to distribute it, but Novell owned the copyrights (such as they were).
2. The code SCO claimed was copied from Project Monterey wasn't in fact copied from there. It was original code IBM wrote and contributed to Monterey (while retaining the copyrights) and then subsequently contributed to Linux (which they had every right to do because the license granted to Monterey wasn't exclusive).
The only reason the lawsuit ended with a settlement was that SCO had lost on every argument and gone bankrupt, so there was no money to pay any judgement against them. I suspect some of the terms of that settlement are going to come back to bite Xinuos, because SCO had managed what everyone had considered impossible: they'd not only angered IBM enough they were out for blood, they'd managed to get IBM's law firm (Cravath, Swaine and Moore, who are a big name) personally angry at them too. I'm fairly sure there's terms in that settlement expressly to make sure that dead horse stays dead and buried. Given that Xinuos isn't bankrupt, and some of the figures behind SCO and the original lawsuit were involved with them last I heard, I expect IBM's attorneys to make great white sharks look cute and cuddly by comparison.