I think it's trickier than that. "Oh god, we have a fanatical fanbase which isn't interested in buying our (expensive new product) but which still loves this (

I think it's trickier than that. "Oh god, we have a fanatical fanbase which isn't interested in buying our (expensive new product) but which still loves this (discontinued product), and are making more of it without paying for our licensing" "Find the unlicensed (discontinued product) and sue the hell out of it" I suspect this has little to do with wanting to piss off TNG fans, but about trying to coerce them into the newer products (like Discovery, or the unnamed Patrick Stewart reboot), or at least protecting the licensing fees they still get around TNG. (See how they are suing Stage 9, but are totally ok with Star Trek: Bridge Crew and Star Trek: Online -- which have TNG stuff in them). I don't agree with this method of enforcement. But I could imagine how/why an executive might think this way. They could have easily used these same lawyers time to help Stage 9 move into proper paid licensing instead (making them even more money, and simultaneously being nicer to the fans and creators). But I'm not a highly paid executive, so what do I know?