I simply can't understand the upside to being as deceitful as Chandra is accused of being. If the product was going to be a big hit, wouldn't everyone profit handsomely? And if it was bound to be a failure in the market anyway, why make a friend into an enemy?
I don't understand it either, but I've seen it often enough, e.g. people who's rather have 100% of nothing than a good and (often more than) fair fraction of something chose the former.
Or in another case the two owners of a company headed for Chapter 7 who didn't own the most crucial forward looking IP insisting on having majority control of any new company. And that was the end of that: we weren't going to give them another chance (or rather, near certainty) of ruining a venture, yet they had a sufficient claim to any future success that they would have made life hell in the courtroom if we ended up having any success.
(And this was no small think, a filesystem for Write Once media developed by the creator of one of the first CD-ROM filesystems, the latter was used to master the 3-5th CD-ROMs in the US (first two were tests, 3rd was all of ancient Greek literature). Prior art to the now dismissed Netapp vs. ZFS case....)
