Jeff with all that said,
after they go after Facebook and make a case, of any kind. who else will they
go after and not have to sue? Isn’t that the intention?

I would think as many have
said here. The prior art -new implementation will cause a lot of new light shed
on old (20005) patents put in place by many, with similar nuances, processes
and methodologies. There are many patents that have like and similar verbiage. The
actual review of the actual sentences (words) using the same descriptions that
end in different methods. That is a large part of the simple reason that the
patent office needs to readdress it alignment of the use of the words in correlation
to the user (patent applicant) and other similar companies using the same
nature of business and practices.

Further that the 2009
granting of most of these patents (sitting on file since 2005), should have NOT
been allowed based on the theory that many are using them for 5 or more years
in a fast paced growing technology based world.  I would think being in telecom and software
since 1996 ( a baby in many eyes) but I have seen these sentences and structure
of words using in computing long before my time.  These sentence address KOBAL, and the use of
it.  do you think anyone with old (now
open ) license are going to bring this up?

As for the person who
commented on Kodak, they need to review the time line for its patents and who
owned them, before commenting that this is like that.  The only comparison would be that the old technology
has been added to.  Much like this patent.
Added to..

Educating the public (enduser), inventor, patent
processor would save a lot of lawsuits.