What is suspiciously nefarious is that Outlaw’s product has been in development, known both ‘in the industry’ and publicly, for quite some time. Why not speak up sooner ... much, much sooner ... unless your aim was to allow Outlaw to use up time and resources first, not just to enforce a non-compete clause. The only way I see this as not being a ‘bleed Outlaw’ action is if the ‘other company’ had somewhat recently signed a contract with the Chinese developer, long after Outlaw, then flexed muscle – the Chinese company choosing profit (or the promise of it) over principle. If the ‘other company’ did indeed sign a contract with the Chinese company in order to get at Outlaw, at first saying ‘no problem’ to the Chinese company regarding the Outlaw product development, then later saying ‘yes, there is a problem’, this would be an indication that this latest part of the scenario was indeed corporate warfare. Who knows, once the 978 is laid to rest, the Chinese company may see the ‘other company’ say ‘thanks, but our project is now dead’ as well.