I did read the article, but I think the issue I have with this is that it is looking at an otherwise appropriate action and condemning it for other reasons.

Isn't the core issue here apathetic pursuit of copyright infringement from all the other copyright holders being infringed? If the Busybox code being constantly litigated prompts them to stop infringing against it... that is a win. It can't being anything but, assuming that their replacement is genuinely unencumbered and appropriate for use.

There is a bigger (and separate issue) that is getting confused however. I'm not trying to paint them as good guys... but targeting this action and calling it wrong... is wrong; factually, if not morally.