I don't understand why this is an EFF fight. From what I gather the line of reasoning is something like: > eff cares about technology, in particular el

I don't understand why this is an EFF fight. From what I gather the line of reasoning is something like: > eff cares about technology, in particular electronics and communication. > sometimes electronic systems, and the software these systems employ, may be patented. > patents in general may foster innovation, but when misused, they may also stifle innovation. > technological innovation, generally speaking, is something the EFF cares about. > in texas, there exists a group of political activists colluding together to willfully stifle technological innovation through the careful misuse of U.S. patent law. > although the manner in which these political malefactors operate may be subtle and convoluted, there is an obvious sense of the goals behind their actions, and those goals threaten to harm, not just a select group of actors mired in interpersonal grudge matches, but every participant in the American civil justice system, by establishing dangerous precedents with long reach and odd side effects that may be weaponized to create widespread strife and conflict amongst anyone coming up against an opponent with the time, money, and the awareness of said precedents. > how the EFF is so certain of such intent among these political actors remains unclear, but because of this, the EFF is willing to invest not-insignificant resources in confronting and disrupting their malignant behaviors. > strategically speaking, should certain specific legal decisions come to pass in an American jurisdiction, it could spell disaster for technological innovation as a whole (really?), based on the implicit logical corollaries established by carefully chosen legal battles won by this group. > for this reason the EFF seeks to challenge the validity of their actions and their authority to operate in general. Is that about right?