A refusal to license for terms that they want to pay isn't the same thing as a refusal to license.You missed ONE important point. Apple consistently REFUSED to license FairPlay to anyone. But I still think the case is a joke regardless.
For example:
Let's say you had a hypothetical discussion that went like this:
"I'll give you a ham and cheese sandwich, and you give me your house?"
"Are you high?"
"Okay, okay... what about you just give me your car instead?"
"No."
"Fine, an evening with your wife and her sister, but only if she can *really* pretend that she's into it."
"Get out."
For what it's worth, Apple *did* reach an agreement with Audible.
We do seem to agree though that the case is largely a joke and a waste of the court's time.