I am no the poster from above, but I believe point #1 is not so much a reply to your post, but more a point on the case in general. As I understand the plan of attack by SCO they had to theories they wanted to argue simultaneously here:
1. That the APA did transfer the copyrights, this argument was basically that they appeared to be included in the list of included assets meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that they were explicitly excluded in the list of assets which would not be transfered.
2. That even if they were not included in the APA it didn't matter because the people involved in the deal THOUGHT they were being transfered.
IMHO point #1 was meant to be a contradiction of SCO's strategy #2 and not so much an addressing of your point.