If Amazon has an acceptible use policy, they don't have the responsibility to validate that the content meets it, but they do have the right to. Unless you're suggesting that Amazon as a retailer should be compelled to carry any product someone wants them to. Would you also suggest that any publishers he sent the book to should be compelled to produce the book? If I go to Amazon because I want to sell a flaming, spiked, triple-ended dildo, should they be required to carry that as well? Amazon does not have a requirement to carry any product someone wants to sell on it. Refusing to carry a book that does not meet preexisting publication requirements is not censorship of the book. Seeking to prevent anyone from carrying it is, but that's not what's going on here.
Is it bad PR? Maybe. Has Amazon done something terrible? No.
I'm not really sure I can work up any outrage over this. Amazon only has a couple of (admittedly broad and subjective) content restrictions (available at https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2TOZW0SV7IR1U ). If they don't have anyone who can validate that the content meets these requirements, I don't think I have much problem with them choosing not to carry it. They're pretty up front about only supporting a half dozen or so languages, so it's not like they're singling out Cornish.
1) Stephens Media decides to get them some of that awesome copyright trolling money.
2) Stephens Media spawns Righthaven.
3) Stephens Media takes their box o' copyright, dumps out all the contents, then sells Righthaven the empty cardboard box.
4) Righthaven brandishes the empty cardboard box in a threatening fashion demanding money.
5) Court says that's fscking retarded, demands Righthaven pay back legal fees.
6) Righthaven puts the empty box over their head and pretends they can't hear.
7) Court takes Righthaven away and starts auctioning it off. Realizes it has no assets except an empty cardboard box.
8) Randazza takes the empty cardboard box and sells it back to Stephens Media for $80k.
In the end, Stephens Media donates eighty thousand dollars and it's reputation to Randazza for no appreciable gain. Well done.
"1. Gamers have the right not to give money to assholes"
Sadly, though they have the right, many do not have the ability. They find themselves helplessly compelled to fling money at whatever the newest, shiniest thing is. Feel pity for these poor folk, with their lack of restraint and good sense.
Marvell claimed that they were using some other "invention".
Marvell claimed that Seagate's patent was prior art that invalidated the CMU patent. The correct course of action is not "Welp, we're good." It's to use that to try to have the CMU patent invalidated. They didn't do that until they got sued.
My understanding from reading other articles is that they did actually try to pursue a license for Marvell for several years before filing suit. And this damage total is for ten years of willful infringement. I have trouble calling it patent trolling in that light.
Of course, I think the patent is ridiculously broad and should be invalidated, but it hasn't been yet.