Many strategic principles work only in specific relationships of size. What works fine for David's attacking Golliath fails completely when Goliath tries it against David. A small organization works against a larger rival differently than a large organization works against smaller rivals (3.4.2 Scale Limitations). One set of methods grows organizations, a very different set keeps them on top. A whole set of classic errors come from a misunderstanding of scale.
We can all agree that conflict is wasteful. But what if the competitor starts the conflict? If their attack produces a dissipating situation, you have said that there is no good defense and that the correct response is to attack what the competitor values. Doesn't this escalate into the conflict we wish to avoid? How do we actually avoid conflict (or wars of attrition) if attacked? Is this what has happened between Google and Microsoft? Regardless of how this battle began, how can either side defend properly against further attack?