Not that simple. Patent and trademark suits are bargaining chips in negotiations. A firm may file a suit simply to enable negotiations to result in a withdrawal of cross filings. Likewise, a firm may refrain from seeking relief from infringement if they're in negotiations with another firm and can use the threat of litigation as a bargaining chip.
Often these issues involve multiple patents/trademarks/copyrights for products/processes/etc. that have nothing to do with one another. e.g. If you withdraw your suit regarding technology X, I'll withdraw mine accusing you of infringing my patent on product Y. In some instances firms buy other firms simply to have patents to use as ammunition in these disputes.
Trying to interpret these kinds of disputes as if they're actually based on righteous indignation, fear of a competitor in the marketplace, or any sort of moral standard ignores the fact that they're all about money. Businesses routinely manage to overcome their righteous indignation over the theft of intellectual property if they're sufficiently compensated. And conversely what gets defined as "intellectual property" by a firm often has less to do with innovation than with hoping for a big payday.
