The article doesn't say what proof was shown or what actions were actionable. This is a very, very common scenario where BigCo X invests in SmallCo X' to get a

The article doesn't say what proof was shown or what actions were actionable. This is a very, very common scenario where BigCo X invests in SmallCo X' to get a board seat and a peek at the technology. SmallCo X' wants not only money but industry validation and the chance to dance with a potential suitor. But when SmallCo X' has failed (after taking both public and private money), it has nothing left than to sell its technology and any assets, including legal judgments. Because it's no longer viable, it has no problem burning relations with an investor, potential buyer, and market leader. So the proof and what's actionable matters. If the law is ambiguous here, it would disincentivize any investments by any BigCo x, and make it harder for any SmallCo x to get money or keiretsu involvement. And when an industry (like aviation) has only a few big fish, any trouble at one can affect everyone, ruining careers and setting back progress for decades.