Informing customers why a long-awaited product has been killed was something that Outlaw really had to do, but outright including the names of all the other players could interfere with future business for Outlaw. Sure, the announcement from Outlaw may trigger a series of events that identifies all those other players, but that is part of the "free market solution" (to borrow the term) that Outlaw can quite reasonably say isn't due to their actions. By refusing to offer the names, Outlaw takes the high road, in a manner of speaking. That can benefit them in other business negotiations.


You may well be right. In fact, you probably are. It is likely that the factory would choose not to use the platform (or at least any obviously recognizable parts of it) for North American or European products, but it is very possible for something sold domestically in Asia to be derived from this design. As for the last question, I think you've already answered your own question. They might have grounds to call in the legal counsel and file a lawsuit in Chinese courts, but no realistic hope of getting any meaningful concessions from the effort. Writing it off as a painful lesson and walking away may be the most fiscally responsible course of action.