2 ms·

Thanks to LWN (https://lwn.net/Articles/851315/ https://lwn.net/Articles/851315/) there's the official press release (https://www.xinuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-and

by trasz 6y ago

Thanks to LWN (https://lwn.net/Articles/851315/ https://lwn.net/Articles/851315/) there's the official press release (https://www.xinuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-and-red-hat/ https://www.xinuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-and-red-hat/) and court documents (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vid.36935/gov.uscourts.vid.36935.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vid.36935/g...). Doesn't look like a prank.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
OK, looking a bit at their filing, I appear to have been mistaken. Their claim is on code written after the sale by Novell. For those with less-than-perfect memories: AT&T sold UNIX (all of it) to Novell. Novell sold some pieces to the Santa Cruz operation, who sold everything they had to Caldera, who became SCO, who went bankrupt and sold off the remaining assets to Xinuos. Code written by AT&T and Novell remained with Novell (this was the topic of the SCO v Novell case). Code written after the sale is the topic of this case. It is also the topic of the last remaining claim in the SCO v IBM case which, if I understand correctly, has still not been settled, even though the stay on the case has been lifted for just under three years. (If it has finally been terminated, and someone could point me to the resolution, I would be grateful.) I don't know if this is Xinuos claiming that they bought the right to sue when they bought the rest of SCO's assets, or if they don't actually have the right to sue, or if both suits can actually go forward. But the claim seems to be the same: IBM got access to the code through Project Monterrey (and only through that), didn't meet the terms of the agreement, and kept the code anyway. The only thing new is the claim that IBM's purchase of Red Hat was anticompetitive. I'm not an antitrust expert, but that merger was a year and a half ago, and it seems to me to be a bit late to complain about it. Where was their complaint when the merger was going down? This seems like just throwing more mud at the wall to see if it will stick. "Hey, since we're filing a lawsuit anyway, let's throw this in!" As I said, not an expert (nor any kind of a lawyer), but I suspect that part won't fly.

by trasz 6y ago

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

OK, looking a bit at their filing, I appear to have been mistaken. Their claim is on code written after the sale by Novell. For those with less-than-perfect memories: AT&T sold UNIX (all of it) to Novell. Novell sold some pieces to the Santa Cruz operation, who sold everything they had to Caldera, who became SCO, who went bankrupt and sold off the remaining assets to Xinuos. Code written by AT&T and Novell remained with Novell (this was the topic of the SCO v Novell case). Code written after the sale is the topic of this case. It is also the topic of the last remaining claim in the SCO v IBM case which, if I understand correctly, has still not been settled, even though the stay on the case has been lifted for just under three years. (If it has finally been terminated, and someone could point me to the resolution, I would be grateful.) I don't know if this is Xinuos claiming that they bought the right to sue when they bought the rest of SCO's assets, or if they don't actually have the right to sue, or if both suits can actually go forward. But the claim seems to be the same: IBM got access to the code through Project Monterrey (and only through that), didn't meet the terms of the agreement, and kept the code anyway. The only thing new is the claim that IBM's purchase of Red Hat was anticompetitive. I'm not an antitrust expert, but that merger was a year and a half ago, and it seems to me to be a bit late to complain about it. Where was their complaint when the merger was going down? This seems like just throwing more mud at the wall to see if it will stick. "Hey, since we're filing a lawsuit anyway, let's throw this in!" As I said, not an expert (nor any kind of a lawyer), but I suspect that part won't fly.