> This rule change also came after someone essentially tried to use an IPR to extort VLSI technology and Intel. the IPR process exists in part to combat paten

> This rule change also came after someone essentially tried to use an IPR to extort VLSI technology and Intel. the IPR process exists in part to combat patent trolling, which is worse than that, and happens more frequently than that, to greater harm than that -- unfortunately for the victims there, they usually aren't rich, politically-connected companies like Intel > the new rules only limit IPRs for (a) for-profit companies (b) not currently engaged in litigation on patents that are in litigation (c) where said for-profit company is not in that field. All 3 of those have to be satisfied for your IPR to be tossed under those rules. Since the EFF is a non-profit, they should really have no problem with this. (1) those limitations sound bad, when I want a for-profit company who is not currently litigating a patent to be able to challenge arbitrary patent trolls' IP via IPR without court costs being a barrier (2) 'these limitations don't directly affect X, therefore X shouldn't have a problem with it' is only true if X cares about nobody but themselves, which obviously isn't true here, given EFF's track record