The issue wasn't that they were intentionally not licensing, they do not believe they infringed on the patent at all and if they did, they felt the patent wasn't legitimate. The Judge already decided that it wasn't intentional. Now, the roof has been set by the jury, the next few years Apple will chisel it down while they try to win the Appeal. If WARF was conservative, which they should be, they would just give Apple the opportunity to settle at a premium to what they licensed to Intel to.
The other aspect to consider, is that Apple doesn't publish their processor designs and they are kept under trade secrets. So there is a lot of professional guessing about how they are managing their ILP and minimizing Load/Store misses.
Wisconsin has a lot more leverage than you suggest.
While appellate courts do overturn jury verdicts all the time, they cannot do so just because they may disagree with the factual findings of the jury. There either has to have been a legal error on the part of the judge, or the factual basis has to be so weak that there is essentially no support for the jury's decision. Also, consider that Wisconsin as an appellate argument as well, since the Judge decided there was no evidence that Apple willfully violated the patent. That is a decision that an appellate court can very easily overturn and place in the issue in the hands of a jury.