That obviously could impact millions of other lines, but I'm sure you'll just keep slugging the Jokelaw koolaid than understand the implications.
You haven't been reading the transcripts and filings. The lines are spread throughout Linux and almost all are non-copyrightable header files due to the Feist decision.
SCO was asked LONG ago to produce its "over a million lines of code" (Quote from Darl McBride) that was in Linux, with an offer to immediately remove them if SCO could show it has copyright for them. SCO never did this action to mitigate damages, which is standard conduct in a copyright case. A plaintiff failing to mitigate damages is a no-no, shows bad faith and an intent to artificially drive-up damages.
And now we know why -- they have nothing.
And then there's the fact that SCO itself released this code under the GPL when it was a Linux company (and even for a while afterwards). And over estoppel they try to say "But that was Santa Cruz, not us" but that doesn't work. Successor-in-interest means not only that you get to bring suit based on your predecessor's contracts (as SCO has taken advantage of), but that you also inherit the other actions and liabilities of your predecessor.
but I'm sure you'll just keep slugging the Jokelaw koolaid than understand the implications.
Sorry, but we're too busy learning the facts of the case by reading the actual transcripts and filings at Groklaw to worry about koolaid. That's the reason you are always soundly defeated by the facts when it comes to this subject.
Or do you make the claim that Groklaw modifies the filings and transcripts to try to make SCO look bad?