Unless the judges are rational and looks up a legal way to deny appeal (likely possible on technical grounds, i.e. faults in the details of the lawsuit). Basically declaring the lawsuit entirely invalid.
When you make a reference to one story, there's no rule that says you can't make references to others as well.
When they are pushing for DRM it's not *actually* about piracy in most cases, they simply just want control. Instead of you being able to transfer music from an LP to the computer, burn it to CD:s, copy it to your music player and phone, etc, they want you to buy an LP, a CD, a downloaded file on the computer, higher price for a copy on the music player, pay another time for a copy on the phone, etc...
All for the same song.
They want to cash in on you as much as possible with as little effort as possible.
So how many of those are specific to the internet? How many are general? Sure there's no way to build a patent free device that can access the internet according to standards?
Also, most of those patents are directly related to hardware, in which case the patent license almost always only stands for a fraction of the cost. Not so very similiar with protocols and software.
You DO know that the current system is the NON-NATURAL system, right? So if it proves to be wrong, isn't that then a double monumental failure since we stopped doing what's natural with the intention to do better but did worse?
I am certain patents are causing more harm then good.
This is how I see it: broadcasting something should give you NO new additional rights automatically out of the blue. Whatever you broadcast, they rights you get is the rights you are given by the copyright holder. If there are no copyright holder (public domain works), you can not get any exclusive rights.