That's not necessarily true. I believe that if B/Z already filed for an injunction, then the grounds for that injuction i.e. the original contract, would become a matter of public record along with any other documentation that supports their argument. If it does not, then GCG may include that as supporting documentation as part of their response. Also, GCG may counter-motion under rule 11 for dismissal and damages, and B/Z's injunction may never see the light of day. Either way, both sides are going to argue and the contract is going to be part of one side's documentation. So, we should get to see it after both sides arguments are heard. This is probably nothing more than legal maneuvering on B/Z's part to delay the release of GCG's product , which they think is going to suck and hurt their brand's image. I'd say it's more of a PR move than monetarily motivated for the moment. B/Z is more concerned with GCG putting out a crappy product which could tarnish their image and impact sales at this point. B/Z only stands to lose if their release is a big success, which would more than likely increase sales for GCG, of which B/Z wouldn't be getting a piece of. This could be a really shrewd move on B/Z's part too. If they keep GCG tied up in court and unable to release their product, they may want to offload it for cheap and B/Z could turn around and mod and release it as their own. It really all depends on how much GCG's operating budget is tied up in their release and who the original contract supports. Either way, I think B/Z is getting what they want by trying to delay the pnp release, so at the very least the two are more disassociated. I think it's a win/win for B/Z, and even more so if they ultimately want the rights to the pnp ip. I've said too much already. I may be giving B/Z way too much credit for a powerplay they might or might not be making. I'm sure they're just greedy bastards anyway, we know how they operate. Getting to read the contract though, we'll probably get to see it, we'll just have to wait.