You caught one key point ...
The law allows Mr McHardy to stop people using the entire Linux kernel (and user space code that is not conveniently portable to something else) until he says otherwise. The payouts are on that scale. If he was collecting on a par with his contribution, or he was splitting 99.75% of the profit with other contributors it would not be so bad, but there is more to it than that.
The vast majority of people who contribute to GPL projects do so with a deal like "I contribute a little, and I get back everything in return". For them, the purpose of enforcing GPL compliance to ensure everyone gets everything rather than some distributors profit from everything by keeping their small part secret. There are already organisations, (Like the Software Freedom Conservancy) that contact distributors who do not honour the GPL. SFC's massively preferred solution is for infringers to start (and continue to) make the source code available for the GPL software ex-infringers distribute.
Imagine instead of one McHardy there are a dozen, or a hundred each charging 100% for their 0.25%. The Linux kernel (and a ton of user space tools) becomes a much more risky proposition. Infringers have been complaining to groups like SFC for McHardy's action for years. They stop infringing, but they still have to pay off McHardy. The ex-infringers blame GPL enforcement organisations for McHardy despite McHardy refusing to even talk with them. Apologising for McHardy's existence has become a significant drain on resources.
If Mr McHardy behaved like this with his own project, that would be fine. His actions are poisoning the work of hundreds of thousands of others. It is hardly surprising that those others are taking steps to limit the damage. Decide for yourself what is surprising here: that there is only one McHardy or that everyone else has been so patient with him.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
