> Docker runs the service and can do whatever they want.

What does this mean? If they could choose any course of action with no consequences they'd probably choose to do nothing.

They can choose to follow the law or to fight the claim in court. Or do nothing and get sued to oblivion. They have choices.

what would be a fair alternative to the "undesirable" choice?

I don't really see that there is one. I think Docker was pushed into taking this action and didn't have any other reasonable course of action.

The other reasonable course of action would be to go to court, where a jury of average citizens could determine whether or not Apple or Docker is in the wrong and decide damages.

Docker wasn't pushed into taking the image down, they *decided* that they'd rather take the image down than have a jury decide who is in the wrong.

"Caving in to the bully with expensive lawyers" isn't synonymous with "following the law", FYI.

that's very important to point out yes! it's not like apple software products are covered by copyright law after all. it's the big bad lawyers that's ruling the day here.