[IBM-1137] to [IBM-1140], now up on GL. These filings cite new case law that has come out since the SJ motions were written and that each side thinks bolsters it case. I have only scanned them - one imagines that most are only tangential, but it is easiest to just wait a couple of weeks for the oppostions to be filed.
I think I now understand SCO spoliation angle, although SCO has done a poor job articulating it in past Court filings. SCO contends that some of IBM's Linux developers had both Linux and AIX code on their machines at the same time, and the AIX code was post-Monterey and thus potentially tainted with UnixWare, which could have worked its way into Linux. Some of those developers had had their AIX CVMC access removed, and they were told to purge the AIX code from their machines. Without having access to that code, SCO is prejudiced in knowing what might have happened.
Don't ask me to justify it - I'm just reporting what SCO seems to be saying. Anyway, the original Spoliation Motion [IBM-819] did mention the unfair competition claim, so SCO is angling to keep it alive now.