He filed a claim he legitimately considered valid, and persisted when told (by the target if his claim, not a court) that his claim was invalid. Then as retribu

He filed a claim he legitimately considered valid, and persisted when told (by the target if his claim, not a court) that his claim was invalid. Then as retribution for persisting, the target of his claim invoiced him. That's retribution aimed at creating a chilling effect and they deserve every bit of criticism they are getting here and more. If they want to use this as a test case to redefine copyright law to mean something favorable to their shareholders, fine. Good luck to them. But attempting to intimidate your adversary with fines is just totally uncool. (And, frankly, a stupid strategy.)