Whichever side that is not willing to end the patent fight (without payments to either side) is the aggressor.
And it seems to me Apple is the one not willing to quit.
It seems like Google had more control over whether that lawsuit was filed than I thought. From FOSS Patents:
>A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review.
EDIT: Since it's not letting me reply to your comment, gonna post it here.
If you're talking about Motorola vs. Apple in general now, clearly Apple wasn't the aggressor. Motorola was the first to sue over patents prompting Apple to counter-sue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.
http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2011/08/when-patents-attack-an...
Yes, in the Motorola-Apple suit, Motorola was the aggressor and the bad guy. But when Google bought them, Apple had already counter-sued them. That's why I defined the aggressor between Google and Apple as one that is not willing to quit.
Has Google ever extracted licensing deals from others?
http://allthingsd.com/20130905/microsoft-trounces-google-in-...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/yahoo-was-licensing-paten...
http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-buys-patents-ibm-defend-itsel...
Incidentally if anyone is told their work is to be patented and will only be used in defense - bear the above behaviour in mind, over time, companies will not just use patents in defense.
Ha, it seems I'm a bit late to make that prediction - it's already happened.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-...