saying Q can't use N designs isn't quite the same as A demanding those designs be destroyed. although you can make a contract for (almost) anything, it's surpr

saying Q can't use N designs isn't quite the same as A demanding those designs be destroyed. although you can make a contract for (almost) anything, it's surprising to me that N would agree that A could forbid use of N designs. the most friendly and reasonable terms would be A demanding to be paid as much as N paid (or would have paid) for the IP in those designs. even renegotiating modestly to reflect Q's different role in the market. it's the virality that's surprising here. even though N designs must have different from A's IP, A demands to destroy it? Q should demand to audit A's IP to ensure that A has destroyed any benefit they got from the collaboration with N.