> full control over channels etc But they’d still be owned by Blockbuster. Why would this be a sticking point? If Blockbuster was even remotely serious, they w

> full control over channels etc But they’d still be owned by Blockbuster. Why would this be a sticking point? If Blockbuster was even remotely serious, they would have at least considered owning a company that will continue to be run by its founders. Also - when the two sides get serious with lawyers, the actual redlined agreement ends up looking quite different from the start state. Given this, at the very least, Blockbuster was lacking imagination, or was overconfident in their position, or wasn’t willing to take a risk (even as a divestment/insurance policy), or all of the above. The sleeping giant theory isn’t a far cry.