One would think that a lawyer that is worth anything at all would be able to craft the necessary legal gobbledegook to make it possible to prevent the type of license abuse that led to this miserable situation where we are all punished. 
I agree. However ... my understanding is that the law as she is practised in these parts does not allow one to prosecute people simply for having an intention. WebAssist is also not allowed to say to potential customers ... "what is your intent in purchasing our product? ... oh REALLY ... in that case we won't sell it to you".
One can only prosecute people for what is actually done. Intentions may be factored in to assess the size of awards/damages, but not the actual fact of having damage. As I understand it, the essence of a contract is for each party to set out its expectations so that a third party (a judge) can make an objective assessment if it was actually breached. That's what WebAssist has tried to do. It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but maybe if we all work together out here we can find a nice legal way around this.
