Ancient ‘Who owns Linux?’ case now has one foot very deep in the grave
A US appeals court has dealt what looks like a near-fatal blow to a long-running legal dispute over the ownership of code within Linux, ruling that a claim brought by SCO successor Xinuos against IBM and Red Hat is invalid and time-barred. The case traces back to a failed 1998 partnership called Project Monterey, in which IBM worked with the Santa Cruz Operation, Intel and Sequent to build a multi-architecture version of UNIX, only for the effort to be overtaken by Linux; IBM subsequently added some Project Monterey code to Linux, prompting SCO and its successors to claim ownership rights over that code, and by extension leverage over Linux itself, which runs on billions of devices worldwide.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on 10 August that it would not revisit a lower court decision rejecting Xinuos's claim, agreeing that the terms governing Project Monterey mean it is now too late to relitigate the matter, and that Xinuos had mischaracterised what was really an ownership dispute as a licensing issue. This follows a 2021 settlement in which an SCO heir accepted $14.25 million from IBM after years of weak evidence. Xinuos now plans to petition for a rare full-bench rehearing, though such requests are seldom granted, suggesting the decades-old dispute may finally be nearing its end.
- Appeals court rejects Xinuos's claim against IBM and Red Hat over Linux code
- Case stems from failed 1998 Project Monterey UNIX partnership
- Xinuos plans a long-shot bid for a full court rehearing
New here? Start with this
Linux is an open-source operating system: its code can be used and changed under published terms, and it runs on billions of devices. In the late 1990s, IBM, Santa Cruz Operation, Intel and Sequent began Project Monterey to develop a version of UNIX for different kinds of computer processors. The project was overtaken by Linux.
IBM later added some Project Monterey code to Linux. Santa Cruz Operation and companies that succeeded it argued that they owned rights to that code, raising questions about who could use it and whether the claims could affect Linux. IBM and Red Hat, which supports and sells Linux-based products, became defendants in the dispute.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who believe the court was wrong to dismiss on timing grounds argue that intellectual property rights, once established, should not expire simply because enforcement is delayed. If code was indeed improperly used in Linux, the passage of time should not prevent the rightful owner from seeking redress, particularly where the other party has reaped enormous benefits from the disputed intellectual property. Procedural technicalities should not supersede substantive justice when a party's legitimate property rights are at stake.
The case against
Supporters of the decision contend that legally enforceable time limits are essential for business stability and to prevent perpetual uncertainty hanging over vast infrastructure that billions depend on. Statutes of limitations reflect the judgment that at some point, businesses must be able to rely on legal certainty rather than face claims reaching back decades, and the explicit terms of the Project Monterey agreement itself impose such restrictions. The consistent weakness of Xinuos's evidence across multiple legal proceedings suggests the company lacked a compelling case to overcome these procedural barriers.