> But considering everything, they had no other choice legally.
Patents are not Trademarks. Patents are valid and legal even if you don't enforce them (where trademarks become invalid if you don't enforce them).
So no, they did have a choice. In fact, they had 3:
1. They could have not gotten the patent at all. This could open them up to legal liability if someone else got it and sued them.
2. They could have kept it for defensive purposes only. Using it if they were sued for patent abuse (and to prevent others from suing on this idea).
3. They could use it offensively.
They chose #3. So yes, they did have a choice.
Additionally, I love your choice of words for the final sentence:
> What would've you done to protect ideas you spent years refining?
I think it hits the key point. They didn't invent the vast majority of what they are suing over. They just refined it. They didn't invent multi-touch, they just polished it. Now, whether that polish is worth a patent is one thing, but the concept is not.
And that's the absurdity of it all. This is not about protecting invention. This is not about protecting innovation. It's about protecting market position.
And if there's a clearer abuse of the patent system than this, I'd love to see it...