> The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. There was no thought of actually asserting these patents against Microsoft, or anyone.

Doesn't it kind of prove part of the argument?

Google apparently felt threatened by patents, enough so to acquire "second strike capabilities" as deterrence.

Seems to me Google though patents aggressive tools with the purpose to hurt other companies or threatening to do so (though defensively in this case).

I am really interested in the "since discarded" part, if someone can recommend some reading.