as CEO of OnLive (not that I've ever read or heard that he behaves this way) such that MS was quietly given access to the technology for an enhanced but larger or un-split amount. This supposes that Perlman would have been able to license the the patents from perhaps Rearden or himself to OnLive in a non exclusive way. This would in essence be saying that OnLive was just a turn key gaming platform for sale and if didn't succeed it was an aesthetic or market timing difference abstracted from the IP itself. This wouldn't mean that Steve didn't give it his all. If something like this held then it might imply that Steve retains full control of the IP and may not have lost any financial skin outside of the considerable blood and sweat he put into OnLive post launch. The benefit to MS would be face saving and looking more stable than it had a right to as it almost faced certain disruption from an upstart. It would be a prestige thing and a way up, at least prior to the leak, of getting the benefit of the IP without tipping off 360 to slow up on sales because something better was coming. Under this scenario the document leak becomes a smoke screen to cover the backroom deal.