Being 'most litigious' does not imply they are patent trolls.
They could be pursuing legit defence of their IP.
FYI in your example - Apple in many ways has no choice but to sue.
If a company is not perceived to be defending their trademarks - they lose them.
When 'Crackberry.com' was popular, Blackberry had to 'sue' them - but funny enough, the relationship otherwise was great. Blackberry had no intention of damaging 'Crackberry' because of course they were helpful to Blackberry! But - there was always a case 'in progress'. Blackberry had to 'appear to be defending it's IP'.
>Being 'most litigious' does not imply they are patent trolls.
sure, just responding to your claim that big, 'reasonable' companies use their IP defensively or "protective[ly]."
> They could be pursuing legit defence of their IP.
that's true for most 'reasonable' companies, but not apple.
> FYI in your example - Apple in many ways has no choice but to sue.
and your logic is akin to saying patent trolls have no choice, but sue to defend their assets. And we are not talking crackberry; we are talking about a small mom-and-pop supermarket in Poland whose domain name, a.pl, doesn't even resemble anything remotely close to Apple.
They could be pursuing legit defence of their IP.
FYI in your example - Apple in many ways has no choice but to sue.
If a company is not perceived to be defending their trademarks - they lose them.
When 'Crackberry.com' was popular, Blackberry had to 'sue' them - but funny enough, the relationship otherwise was great. Blackberry had no intention of damaging 'Crackberry' because of course they were helpful to Blackberry! But - there was always a case 'in progress'. Blackberry had to 'appear to be defending it's IP'.