Your points are good ones but I don't think the author is saying that you are always better off fighting than not. His point is more nuanced.
My read is this:
1. Don't panic.
2. Get professional guidance.
3. Weigh the calculus well of how the troll will likely respond to resistance before deciding to fold: the troll is aiming at low-hanging fruit and may not choose to pursue someone who is prepared to raise obstacles (a matter that needs to be carefully weighed with professional help).
4. Part of this calculus (not emphasized in the article) is the position of the larger company whose platform is being targeted, whether Apple, Google, or whomever. I find it intriguing that the developers first targeted were very quick to publicize their plight and then went dark after being sued. This may signify that Apple has privately agreed to hold them harmless in exchange for their agreement to keep this confidential. And this would make sense. Apple would be foolish to make a blanket commitment to indemnify all developers when its agreement with them says that all the risk falls on the developer. At the same time, it can't afford to let a vulture come in and feed on the people who ultimately make the platform work. Hence, a strong letter to the world saying that it will vigorously defend its license rights (but with no public commitment to hold developers harmless), a motion to intervene in the lawsuits already filed by Lodsys against select developers, and dead silence (and, we assume, a forthcoming defense) from those same developers who normally would have taken the extortionist license terms and folded. This very likely means that the developers will stay the course with support from Apple, and that support almost has to include a private agreement to indemnify for this scenario to make sense. I am of course speculating here and might be dead wrong. The point for developers who have been threatened, however, is not to fold reflexively in such situations before exploring what Apple (or any other party defending its platform) is really doing behind the scenes. Even though this article did not get into this aspect, its main point really brings one to this sort of examination: if you are threatened, get good advice from knowledgeable people who know how to help steer you through this sort of maze. That is money well spent and it does not require you to spend a fortune fighting a troll one-on-one. The fact that a proper assessment might show the troll to have a flimsy case only reinforces the idea that there may be room to resist, if you do it right.
My read is this:
1. Don't panic.
2. Get professional guidance.
3. Weigh the calculus well of how the troll will likely respond to resistance before deciding to fold: the troll is aiming at low-hanging fruit and may not choose to pursue someone who is prepared to raise obstacles (a matter that needs to be carefully weighed with professional help).
4. Part of this calculus (not emphasized in the article) is the position of the larger company whose platform is being targeted, whether Apple, Google, or whomever. I find it intriguing that the developers first targeted were very quick to publicize their plight and then went dark after being sued. This may signify that Apple has privately agreed to hold them harmless in exchange for their agreement to keep this confidential. And this would make sense. Apple would be foolish to make a blanket commitment to indemnify all developers when its agreement with them says that all the risk falls on the developer. At the same time, it can't afford to let a vulture come in and feed on the people who ultimately make the platform work. Hence, a strong letter to the world saying that it will vigorously defend its license rights (but with no public commitment to hold developers harmless), a motion to intervene in the lawsuits already filed by Lodsys against select developers, and dead silence (and, we assume, a forthcoming defense) from those same developers who normally would have taken the extortionist license terms and folded. This very likely means that the developers will stay the course with support from Apple, and that support almost has to include a private agreement to indemnify for this scenario to make sense. I am of course speculating here and might be dead wrong. The point for developers who have been threatened, however, is not to fold reflexively in such situations before exploring what Apple (or any other party defending its platform) is really doing behind the scenes. Even though this article did not get into this aspect, its main point really brings one to this sort of examination: if you are threatened, get good advice from knowledgeable people who know how to help steer you through this sort of maze. That is money well spent and it does not require you to spend a fortune fighting a troll one-on-one. The fact that a proper assessment might show the troll to have a flimsy case only reinforces the idea that there may be room to resist, if you do it right.