<Narrower, not weaker. The new claims may indeed be stronger, but narrower.>

Now we are getting somewhere. If narrower means more definitive, then on this we have agreement. But if more definitive automatically means a smaller net (the Ease analogy), I do not necessarily agree.

<The courts also presume this to be the case. The patent holder has to prove otherwise>

Yes, I just agreed with the narrower view, but I'm at a loss as to what needs to be proved. Either a company infringed or they didn't. A more definitive claim makes that job easier to determine. Now if you are saying that the amendment actually did change the essence of the claim, then yes I agree the patent owner has his work cut out.

<The essence of the claim is changed in my opinion. The technical analysis will take a little bit of time to put together. >

Hopefully putting it togeter meant writing up the analysis not doing it. I, and probably many others here, look forward to reading your analysis. TIA

Opty