I believe the article mentioned that anyone who wanted to see some of the evidence could do so if they signed a non-disclosure. So it is possible for any potential defendents to see if SCO has a prima facie case.
I think the damages are presumably for past actions, and hiding information on the details of the case doesn't exacerbate that. SCO has already made an offer to the defendents to come clean. If defendents believe they have no liability, then they will find out the rest of the information during the discovery process for the court case.
So I don't see where SCO is exacerbating any damages. It is merely preventing those who have presumably infringed in the past from hiding that infringement before SCO sues them.
By the way, this analysis doesn't mean I'm a cheerleader for SCO. I think their offer for licensing for Linux users was preposterously high. But I also think that from a legal standpoint, if they can prove massive copying of their intellectual property into Linux, then Linux users are in deep trouble, since they will have to bear the responsibility for using that copyrighted code.
It may still turn out that the alleged infringements are minor and inconsequential. If so, then SCO deserves all the scorn the Linux people have aimed at them, and they deserve to be heavily counter-sued. But I don't think any of us have access to enough information to decide whether SCO's case is a good one or not.