Well, I think software patents are inherently broken anyway. But I can't fault a company for trying to leverage that type of thing if the system allows it.
I notice some similar thinking in this respect about politicians, too: in both cases people complain about them and wish for a day when we'd just have "good" ones. (And often lament a non-existent past where they were good.) Companies are intended to always act in their interests and politicians almost universally (and since time immemorial) act in whatever way they think best helps their reelection because if either entity didn't generally act in this manner, they'd cease to exist and be replaced by an instance that would. The system selects for companies and politicians that act in their interests. Understanding and internalizing this fundamental fact about these entities' nature seems to me key to helping us effect the change we want to see.
Second, the only reason a company does something is the people there make decisions to do so. These people are perfectly capable of being evil and being dicks, and frequently are. Since they are the decision-makers and act on the company's behalf, and cause others to do so as well, just assume people saying 'company x is evil' is shorthand for 'the decision makers and people who carry out actions in the name of company x are creating evil by this coordinated action'.
Third, I accept that most institutions act in their own self interest, this really doesn't require too much deep insight. I have been voting with my dollar and my cooperation for a long time.
Finally: I was not suggesting anything other than what you said, I was disagreeing with the "can't fault a company for...". This is totally doable. It is a dick move, and may or may not have long term ramifications. Self interest is different than lazy "greediest move available now".
Banks for instance advocated the loosening of regulation to act just as you suggest. Now many blame them for breaking western economies.