Right now, I think it's more that they don't want US v TeensyStartup to be the case that sets precedent.
By stepping in with these indemnification clauses, they aren't betting $4T that they're sure to win. They're just reserving a (much smaller) open check to protect against losing because of somebody else's lawyers.
They may win, they may lose, but they want to make sure they're the ones who get to fight for it either way.
Comments
I would refine that:
Right now, I think it's more that they don't want US v TeensyStartup to be the case that sets precedent.
By stepping in with these indemnification clauses, they aren't betting $4T that they're sure to win. They're just reserving a (much smaller) open check to protect against losing because of somebody else's lawyers.
They may win, they may lose, but they want to make sure they're the ones who get to fight for it either way.
They could step in on a case by case basis even without this indemnification.