Because they are independent. I’ve seen a number of attorneys step into this on both sides. So far the ones that come down against SCO appear to be paid by the other side, I can’t be sure about the ones for SCO but clearly some of them are paid by SCO. Attorneys can, and are really good at, arguing both sides. I’m using the financial analysts as a gauge of whether what SCO presents is compelling to a jury. My conclusion is that it is enough. Your point on Germany is interesting but neither of us likely understands all the differences there (and I do know there are huge differences in the German legal system) to effectively factor this in. It doesn’t hurt your point but it may not help it much either. In looking at this, Germany just represents more risk than SCO was willing to take. (I’m not clear why you would want to put this on trial in Germany anyway, folks I know avoid that court system like the plague).