Reading the comment above from noen, it seems McDonalds sabotaged the project as part of a plan for an acquisition. When reading the article I also jumped to c

Reading the comment above from noen, it seems McDonalds sabotaged the project as part of a plan for an acquisition. When reading the article I also jumped to conclusion it was IBM's problem. But then thought it sounded an awful like McDonalds was 'hinting' that it was IBM's problem while not being able to say so. So kind of a reverse stab. McDonalds is acting like there is contract language saying they can't say what happened, and subtly making it seem like it was IBM when really McDonalds is saying: "It was IBM but we can't say because of contracts, wink wink, but really we were a horrible customer and wrecked the project and trying to spin this onto the vendor".