If you're hoping to see patent reform, this dispute seems to be the wrong one to focus on. This strikes me as more of a genuine argument, and not a flagrant ab

If you're hoping to see patent reform, this dispute seems to be the wrong one to focus on. This strikes me as more of a genuine argument, and not a flagrant abuse of the system that would likely lead to change: * AGIS seems to be a genuine company, that filed its own patents, and has a real product. There are much clearer examples of trolls out there. * The patent claims are highly specific. This is not a "...on the Internet" type patent. * Life360 is not (yet) claiming they don't infringe; they are focusing on obviousness. * The patent system now has a relatively straightforward, quick and inexpensive system for getting a patent re-examined. Life360 hasn't (yet) said they will do that. * The Life360 strategy seems to be primarily PR-driven: attention-grabbing language, posting things on Twitter, contacting journalists, etc. This reminds me of the legal saying: "If you’re weak on the facts and strong on the law, pound the law. If you’re weak on the law and strong on the facts, pound the facts. If you’re weak on both, pound the table." To my mind, this argument seems more likely to boil down to "should ideas be protected by patents", instead of "should we do something about shell companies that abuse patent law to extort money".