Yeah, I understand the article to be saying that the Hitachi contract is for the train control system, including the software and equipment necessary for the operation of the train underground. The broader system upgrades include communications systems between trains and stations. At least how I read it.

No, the $212 million includes the entire upgrade (and 20 years of support) of the automatic train control system. The full $700 million plus is for the overall modernization of multiple systems.

pulled right from the fuckin court documents

The “court documents” are filings by the parties. You’re summarizing litigation documents filed by Twitter, in a motion to dismiss, which is a phase of litigation before either side comes forward with any evidence.

The court hasn’t ruled on anything, so you’re just repeating statements that one side has claimed. I’m pointing out that the other side is claiming the opposite.

The suing company isn’t going off anything but fucking assumptions.

They’re not required to come forward with evidence (and litigation procedure doesn’t even give them much of an opportunity to come forward with evidence at this stage). What they have come forward with is literally sealed by the court, so unless you’re leaking confidential court documents you don’t have any idea of what they’re claiming. Take a look at the docket.

If you’re going to be aggressive in this comment section, at least learn the very basics of the thing you’re being aggressive about. It’s clear you don’t know the basics of this type of litigation, so it might help if you show some intellectual humility, take a step back, and let the knowledgeable people actually weigh in, to be able to evaluate the publicly filed documents in an informed way. Whatever it is you’re doing instead, looks pretty bad.

There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, “the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries.”

You’re leaving out that the paragraph you’re summarizing starts off with “X claims that.”

One side says there was a contract. The other side says it wasn’t firmed up yet into a binding contract. Neither side has come forward with their evidence.

Also, Wiwynn is also suing for negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, which don’t require a contract.