Heh, it always comes around to the business practices ...
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it Ok to go after the Chinese copy artists, but not someone who they perceive as infringing here?
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't seem like the same thing to me. In the one case, it's a company copying your products, with only a few minor changes. In the other case, it's a company who is innovating new products, who uses a feature that vaguely kinda-sorta can conceiveably violate a patent if you interpret it very broadly. But this other company can't afford to fight as long and hard as you -- so you sue them knowing they'll have to settle or bankrupt themselves defending the suit.
That's the heart of why people don't like Mag. Decades ago, they created an awesome product. In the intervening years, they've innovated what, exactly? What they've done instead is sued companies that did truly innovate -- not Chinese clone companies, innovators like Arc.
I would draw a direct parallel with Buck Knives, who was way on top by the 70s, and rightfully so. Then they completely stopped innovating, and by the late '80s, other knife companies sprang up and ate Buck's lunch. What if huge Buck had responded to every threat back then by suing the little innovators based on every weak overly-broad interpretation of their patents, suing fledgling Benchmade and Spyderco into the ground since Buck had more of a legal warchest? Then Buck would have been free to just keep coming out with Buck 110s, year after year, except this year they come in red, or say "Nascar" on the side. Instead, Buck responded by trying to capture the spirit that got them on top in the first place, and is staging a comeback based on some strong new products.
Joe