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."