I don't think so. I was replying to someone who said "What I don't understand is the Linux guys have offered to fix the problem by removing SCO code and replacing it with open source." I was pointing out that simply removing infringing code from Linux does not clear the table on past infringements. And yes, of course that argument was assuming hypothetically that some of the IP was copied. Was that assumption not obvious from the first line that said "I think I can explain SCO's point of view on that."?
"The linux source and its evolution is as well documented as any such activity can be. The CVS archives contain records of every change ever made (well, after Linus released the first versions) and they are publicly readable."
What good does that do for Linux users? From SCO's point of view, the end users are the ones using (hypothetically) infringing code. The license arrangements between those users and the original programmers are not relevant to SCO's case, because those license arrangements (as best as I understand them) do not assign any liability to those who produced the code.
Perhaps you are suggesting that, if SCO has evidence of infringing code, they should be suing individual programmers instead? That's an interesting thought.