> He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out of business That's theoretic

> He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out of business That's theoretically true - after all, it's the same way patent trolling works. But he hasn't actually proven that yet, since he did win a juried verdict (with punitive damages, on top of that). That's about as clear-cut a decision as our legal system can provide (before getting to the appellate level).