> First, the original SCO v IBM case was never completely resolved. It's still, 18 years after filing, still theoretically alive.
Unless I’m misreading the history, not as would matter for res judicata; SCOs case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent refiling the claims (only a dismissal without prejudice would not have that effect.) There seems to be some aspect of an appeal still active, but until and unless that reversed the dismissal with prejudice and resulted in a dismissal without prejudice, the same claims couldn’t be made by SCO in another case.
> Second, Xinuos isn't SCO. Xinuos is the outfit that bought SCO's remaining assets when they declared bankruptcy
Xinuous’s basis for a claim is purchase of the underlying rights on which the action is taken from SCO, as such, they are in privity with SCO and would generally be bound by res judicata the same as SCO would be; res judicata doesn’t require identical parties, but includes various relationships where parties are asserting the same legal rights (not separate rights of the same character), such as agent-principal, other control relations relevant to the first litigation, and—relevant here—where one party’s claim arises because it is the successor to the interests asserted in the earlier suit.
Of course, res judicata doesn’t stop you from filing a suit, its just grounds for the other party to love to have it dismissed. And if Xinuous has even half-competent counsel, they arr aware of the previous case and have an argument ready as how this involves interests that weren’t litigated in that case, but that they have an argument doesn’t mean its going to be a successful one.
