I disagree with your analysis.

Judge Kimball wrote in his memorandum decision:

Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities. Further, SCO, in its briefing, chose to cavalierly ignore IBM's claims that SCO could not create a disputed fact regarding whether it even owned the relevant copyrights.

I'm inclined to take Judge Kimball's expression of astonishment at face value.

IBM made an expansive counter-claim. The SCO Group—opposing a motion for summary judgement—didn't offer any competent evidence to create a disputed fact. The clear inference is that they couldn't offer any evidence. They didn't have any. They never had any. Astonishing.

Thus, IBM has made out a case for their Lanham Act counter-claim.

But there's a public policy issue that goes beyond a private, civil matter of mere trade libel. Did The SCO Group have an objectively reasonable basis for bringing their lawsuit? How would we know? If the court tilts the discovery scales in such a way as to give The SCO Group everything they say they need to make a case, then can they put some facts into evidence? If they still can't, then this lawsuit was a mere sham.

Right now the SCO Group and their various counsel enjoy a presumption of good faith... and a presumption of innocence.