So those are the two motions SCO is opposing in the new filings, and here are the docket entries, which we can read together:

05/18/2007 - 299 - Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 271 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on the Copyright Ownership Portions of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Normand, Edward) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

05/18/2007 - 300 - Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

05/18/2007 - 301 - Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 273 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claim in its Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Unpublished Cases)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that the numbering of the PDFs on Novell's second motion are odd. It's because of the glitch I earlier pointed out, that Novell had filed identical motions as numbers 271 and 273, although the memos in support made it clear, along with the docket text, that they were supposed to be two separate motions. So, now Novell has filed the corrected motion for 273, the memo for which was already correct, so it is still 274, while the corrected memo it supports is 282 now. Just explaining so you don't go around in circles. And all of the above need to be OCR and put into HTML, if any of you are willing and able. Thanks if you can.