Ron,

Thanks for the input and analogy. However, I would argue that it is not that cut and dry - nor always solely about the numbers or odds. Merits of the case or sending a clear message has to be part of the equation (you may have made some business based on this philosophy by your clients..cionjecture on my part). Otherwise, you would be paying "nuisance" fees to every Tom, Dick, & Harry that make such claims. In aggregate, these would not be nuisance fees anymore and would amount to real money. The present SC case shows that Microsoft went to extraordinary efforts in the present matter (granted is appears they had much to lose). However, they probably did not think a verdict of such magnitude was in the cards. I am sure that at some point in the game they could have "made this go away"..and I am sure that settlements were offered.

The counter argument would be that they we not just asking for nuisance amounts / relief (I can't remember if injunctive relief was part of the equation).

Some companies (such as Disney) would have burned earth policies with regard to defending certain aspects of their business with regard to claims (understand that this climate can change with CEOs, BODs, etc.).