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 Refiles the Leaked Memoranda
Thursday, December 28 2006 @ 10:23 PM EST

I believe this says it all:
909 - Filed & Entered: 12/28/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [861] Sealed Document REFILE of Document #907: Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix A)(Hatch, Brent)

910 - Filed & Entered: 12/28/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [868] Sealed Document, REFILE of Document #908:Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix A)(Hatch, Brent)

For text, go here for 909 and Appendix A, which was improperly redacted and filed as 907, and here for 910 and Appendix A, which was 908.

SCO's stock went up 1.89% today, coincidentally I'm sure.

And if you want to know why I think that no matter how many ways SCO finds to accidentally leak IBM emails, it isn't likely to help, you might find IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of SCO's Unfair Competition Claim (SCO's Sixth Cause of Action) of interest, in which IBM revealed that under the contract with Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz was supposed to get IBM's written consent to any assignment of the Project Monterey agreement in a change of control. It didn't ask for permission regarding the sale to Caldera, and further IBM sent a letter in June of 2001 expressly refusing to consent to the contract being assigned to Caldera.

That, IBM points out, means that SCO can whine about Project Monterey all day without it meaning anything legally, because "SCO was never party to and does not have standing to assert a claim related to a breach of the Monterey JDA."


  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 )