I think you are looking at it inside a box, as an isolated issues.
Patent litigation is simply a weapon used by companies offensively or defensively.
When in a fight with your competitors you look at your weapons and theirs. When evaluating the visible weaponry of their competitors they see patent litigation near the top of the list. When they look at their arsenal of weapons, they do not see patent litigation at the top of the list. Therefore, they have decided it's better to eliminate patent litigation as a weapon rather than to go into battle against it.
Their strategy is to change the rules of what weapons can be used in battle. :-) It's very smart.
Isn't this like nation-states trying to prevents wars so that they can compete on building effective societies? It would be perversely cynical to suggest that the nations more confident in their ability to deliver effective societies were somehow cheating by trying to prevent the needless destruction and waste of wars.
I'm generally a lurker, and not a programmer, not highly opinionated on software patenting, but to me the analogy was perfectly clear.
Bogus patents = military power
useful innovations = effective societies.
Trying to remove bogus patents/military power and shift the center of gravity over to useful innovations/effective societies, isn't nefarious despite advantaging one particular party.
Patent litigation is simply a weapon used by companies offensively or defensively.
When in a fight with your competitors you look at your weapons and theirs. When evaluating the visible weaponry of their competitors they see patent litigation near the top of the list. When they look at their arsenal of weapons, they do not see patent litigation at the top of the list. Therefore, they have decided it's better to eliminate patent litigation as a weapon rather than to go into battle against it.
Their strategy is to change the rules of what weapons can be used in battle. :-) It's very smart.