There are plenty of mid sized business that depend on an anchor client. Obviously that's not a great long term situation.

But it doesn't really distract from the particular dynamic we've been talking about in this subthread, which is a more aggressive and predatory version of competition that captures the deal then uses the courts to capture the already invested capital infrastructure from the side that lost the deal. This sort of tactic is enabled more by people who can market to investors via manufactured signals vs the idealized lassie faire market reality of the transaction.

I'm not pretending this is a trivial problem to solve, but I think it is very much a real problem, and the "they were fools and the market simply beat them" narratives fail to capture what's really going on here imo.