Ancient ‘Who owns Linux?’ case now has one foot very deep in the grave
Appeals court upholds decision the case is dead, but Xinuos is trying for a long-shot re-hearing
The highly contested case surrounding the ownership of Linux has finally reached its end, with a panel of three judges ruling that a claim against IBM and Red Hat is invalid and the statute of limitations has expired. The story began in 1998 when IBM sought to create a single version of UNIX compatible with various processor architectures, partnering with Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), who developed a version for x86 CPUs.
This partnership, known as "Project Monterey," included other companies like Intel and Sequent. However, the alliance ultimately failed as Linux emerged, offering a versatile Unix-like system capable of running on multiple processors and introducing innovative software development methods. IBM allegedly incorporated some of the code developed during Project Monterey into Linux, leading SCO and its legal successors to claim ownership of the code, granting them potential legal rights over Linux.
The significance of this case lies in the billions of devices that run Linux, potentially generating substantial royalties, as seen with Huawei's $0.50 patent royalties per device. In 2021, SCO's heir settled with IBM for $14.25 million, acknowledging the lack of strong evidence supporting SCO's claims. Another SCO legal successor, Xinuos, filed an additional claim, arguing that IBM breached a non-exclusive license by using Project Monterey code without permission, but the US District Court dismissed Xinuos' arguments, and the case was subsequently appealed.
On August 10th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal, confirming that the original governing legalese for Project Monterey rendered the matter unsuitable for re-litigation. The Appeals Court also ruled that Xinuos incorrectly framed the issue as a licensing dispute instead of an ownership dispute.
Xinuos plans to file a petition to present the case before the full bench of the Court of Appeals, but such requests are rare, as they typically involve substantial legal errors or significant issues that warrant reconsideration. With the Second Circuit allowing reviews for less than 0.03% of cases, the likelihood of a resolution appears high.
Written by urgent.news from The Register Science's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
