Why do you dismiss sman's info out of hand? Are you saying that the citations in the article are limited in scope and only refer to " Business Methods". I interpret the article as a discussion about the changing " business methods" (essentially the Internet) that can and have contributed to the infringement of IP.

The references in the article seem to me to apply to any patent. However, most of the cites appear to be relevant to a third party with the exception of the "indirect infringement" reference. That's very interesting considering EDIG's claim that some of the phones have been sold on the Internet. Is it inconceivable that it was done with the knowledge, consent and assistance of Samsung? That section seems particularly relevant to the current case.

As to the age of the article, the Constitution is a lot older and it still applies.......at least it did till this past January. :>)

If I'm wrong about my take on the article, please tell me. I'm always willing to learn.

BTW....Thanks sman!