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.