Good point - well the specification is "vague" anyway. <rant>Why the courts should be obliged to entertain such (apparently) blatent opportunism/adventurism is another matter ("because the unilateral barring of such by any single court official is demonstratably unsafe, considering the history of corruption and/or incompetence in most jurisdictions," would be one answer I suppose - it is a sadly imperfect world).</rant>
A late reply, but I'm sitting in a hotel room bored.
This kind of thing is not new; back in the early days of the auto industry, the principal players were held hostage by a gent named Selden, who held a patent on the original application of an internal combustion engine to move a 4-wheeled vehicle. Selden's car never went into production, and may never have been practical (it used a Brayton-cycle engine rather than the Otto-cycle engine we know today), but his patent was enough for him to extract 0.75% royalty from all actual car manufacturers. Henry Ford (et. al.) were taken to court by Selden for infringement (i.e., they would not pay the royalty), and after a lengthy court battle Ford broke the Selden patent in 1911 (Wikipedia link
). In defense of Selden, he was actually active in the industry at the time and took the patent out for himself; he didn't simply buy it wholesale from someone else.