I think you misunderstand what I said. This is not to allow companies to violate the GPL, it is to help them (and mostly their suppliers, really) use non-GPL software. That way, if the supplier makes a mistake and can't find the exact source for the non-GPL software, nobody is on the hook for litigation and extreme remedies.
In practice, it would make things easier if my suppliers didn't ship any GPL user-space code to me. At Sony, we'll put on our own user-space GPL code. We have good practices in place for managing our GPL responsibilities in this case, thank you very much. In the case of kernel code, to my knowledge we've never had a problem with a supplier providing correct sources for this.
I understand why this is sub-optimal in the grand scheme of things, because it detracts from the community value of GPL user-space code.