It would be because of the legal system, but not because of anything that can reasonably be
attributed to being particularily impartial.
It is flat out outrageous and ridicolous that one can make concrete, verifiable claims for a
court, and then proceed to stall for like a decade when prompted to provide any evidence
To the contrary: the process guarantees that the system is -not- impartial, but favors those
with deep pockets. It's not much comfort to you that you -may- win in 7 years if the problem
in question is going to bankrupt you in 3.
Not a problem in this -particular- case, since SCO, clearly the agressor, is also the one with
the least deep pockets. But often enough it's the other way around.