You should note that broken clocks aren't always wrong.

The OPs point is that a competent lawyer will be able to evaluate the relevant law in the relevant jurisdiction(s) and ask relevant questions before giving advice. While advice given on HN may sometimes be right in regards to the law, it is so often wrong that it's best to just go see a lawyer. (Or if you really think the advice is that good, bring the advice to the lawyer)

When dealing with the law and giving people options as to what they might do it's important to note that it's information and not advice. If someone actually gives advice on hacker news then you should definitely not take it. Someone giving information is generally the first clue that they the information they are giving might be relevant in their jurisdiction.

Having a competent lawyer who understands the industry and can help with the best course of action is great. My point was - many lawyers aren't fit for this, and finding one is also a challenge.

Sometimes settling is a reasonable option, even if you dislike patent trolls. If the licensing fee isn't much, and if the patents seem strong (for example, if they've already been through litigation and were held valid) then fighting can be a very risky proposition. Even winning could be more expensive than just paying the fee and getting on with your life.

It surely depends on resources. If you have them - it's better to fight and try to invalidate those patents (like Newegg did). Some patents are strong, while others are junk. And third have prior art. Naturally not everyone has resources to look for it, but pooling resources can help. Many victims fighting a racketeer is easier than one victim alone.