I think we are talking at cross purposes to each other, but I'm hoping that if I listen to you - we can come to some agreement. Apple took 100% of the risk of

I think we are talking at cross purposes to each other, but I'm hoping that if I listen to you - we can come to some agreement. Apple took 100% of the risk of the new facility - it's all on Apple, GT is not on the hook for it a bit. That's why Apple did not involve GT in its construction. GT did take risk in the building of Saphire (a risk, as it turns out, that they did not succeed on) - though they did it mostly with borrowed money from Apple (but they had exposure as well). The Bankruptcy was mostly because GT was unable to pay back apple, and their cash flow position was such that they were no longer a going concern - but Apple is going to take a loss there as well - I can't believe that Used Sapphire furnaces are going to be sold at a premium. The part that you bring up that is interesting, is whether the elements that Apple was building (the physical plant) were important components in the process pipeline for successfully manufacturing Sapphire. If, indeed, they were important, and if they in any way contributed to the failure of GT in successfully manufacturing Sapphire, and if, Apple indeed, did not let GT take a significant role in directing the design and build of those components - then, I'll grant you that was heavy handed behavior on Apple's part. They can't hold GT responsible for successfully delivering sapphire, but then simultaneously prevent them from having any authority over a vital component in the building of said sapphire. Sound Fair?