Yes I would say you are missing something in your

Yes I would say you are missing something in your analysis.

My impression (it is only that|) is that John is not a team player and keeps everything in his head. He may be smart, but that knowledge is completely useless there. I have worked with many of these kinds of people. Invariably, the reality is far different than the promise in terms of their true knowledge and expertise.

Meaning, he did not document anything. More accurately put, he did not follow a disciplined, collaborative engineering approach.

How can you build anything that is not documented? How can you sell anything you cannot build?

Reverse engineering is what is called for here to have a chance of selling anything. It is probably Heddle's latest (and last) attempt to salvage something from this.

The catalyst served the purpose of portraying an image of something unique, which Plastic to Owe is not. For all we know, they might be using a standard off the shelf catalyst from some company like Lubrizol.

Is there any hard evidence that it even exists? Something that they could be held accountable to in a court of law?