decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Opposes 2 IBM Motions for SJ: re Interference and Unfair Competition
Wednesday, December 27 2006 @ 06:32 PM EST

SCO has filed two redacted memoranda in opposition to two of IBM's summary judgment motions. Here is the Pacer information:
907 - Filed & Entered: 12/27/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [861] Sealed Document Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)

908 - Filed & Entered: 12/27/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [868] Sealed Document, Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)

So you can compare, here is IBM's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, which is what #908 is responding to. And here's IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action), the one #907 is opposing. That's the claim that kept morphing, with IBM doing everything it could to try to figure out what SCO was talking about, after every entity SCO claimed IBM had caused to stop having a positive relationship with SCO denied any such interference.

Also, Red Hat has filed another letter [PDF] with the judge in Delaware, as required quarterly. It's just a low-key accounting of events in the SCO litigation.

Update: SCO has done it again -- they filed a "redacted" document improperly redacted. So I've removed it until we can put up one that is properly redacted.

Update 2: I've got 908 done as text. See the next article. Enjoy, while I work on 907. Update 3: 907 is done now as text as well.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )