The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.
That's true, in certain situations, companies can use the system to make it painfully risky to attempt to take action against them.
There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.
It's not any and all costs. The court makes the loser pay costs that are proportional and reasonable given the issues in the case. Which makes sense as otherwise Google could indeed tell its lawyers to go on a billing spree to hurt the counterparty if they lose.
From reports wright was already spending a multiple of what his opponents were spending, the risk of having to pay our legal costs was probably not a major factor in his thinking.
He essentially bragged on his slack that the relative costs didn't matter as his goal was ruining his opponents by causing them costs.
A relevant detail is that even though loser pays in the UK they don't pay 100%, so one can potentially make the residual they do pay ruinous.