Novell doesn't mince words. I've glanced through it all quickly and the nicest thing Novell says about SCO is that it is confused about the applicable law. The worst thing they say is that one thing SCO said is frivolous. In between, you find some mockery and disdain.

Novell is the beneficiary, of course, of IBM's careful, gentlemanly foundational work to expose SCO's less appealing profile, and so Novell doesn't have to go through all the "After you, Alphonse" pleasantries while getting the judge up to speed on what the court is dealing with here. This court knows. Even so, it's breathtakingly plain-spoken. I'd say Boies Schiller has met its match for aggression, although Novell is never nasty or underhanded, and I anticipate fireworks to come in the Novell litigation.

Here are all of today's filings, so you can see where the exhibits go. As we put up the text, I'll go into more detail, but I know you want to read it all right away:

• Order - giving Novell until the 19th to file replies to both motions
• Novell's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Reply Memorandum

  Proposed Order Granting Novell Inc.'s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Reply Memorandum

• Reply in Support of Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration

  Exhibit A: Thiess v. Lifeminders - It's not available on Pacer, and the exhibit is from Lexis, which I don't feel comfortable putting on Groklaw, but you can read about the case here.
  Exhibit B: IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration

• Declaration of David E. Melaugh in Support of Novelll's Motion to Stay

  Exhibit 1:SCO Source Logs - this doesn't mean code, by the way. It means everything SCO has turned over to Novell in discovery so far.
  Exhibit 2: Notice of Filing Plaintiff's Exhibits for Use at Hearing on February 6, 2004 in SCO v. IBM -- SCO's source log, materials turned over by SCO to IBM in that litigation. Same bates numbers, Novell points out, showing that SCO hasn't yet gone to any special trouble in discovery for Novell. Some of the documents aren't even in response to any request from Novell, not that SCO has even tried to do a match-up.
  Exhibit 3: Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories
  Exhibit 4: Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report

• Reply in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action

  Exhibit A: Coexist v. Cafepress - This is the ruling directly from Pacer. I don't want to put Lexis copies on Groklaw due to copyright concerns, so this is just a note to let you know that the actual exhibit has Lexis explanatory materials as well.

Any help doing text versions would be greatly appreciated. I got an email this week from a blind Groklaw member, thanking me and all of you for our kindness in doing this work, which he appreciates deeply. PDFs can be a serious problem for the blind. And this way, the documents are easily searchable too. Just leave a comment if you can OCR or HTML one of the documents, so we don't duplicate work, and then send it to me in a plain text email, in the body of the message, with a note as to what credit you'd like. Thank you. This case is getting more and more intriguing. I'll explain next.