There are definitely some things missing from his analysis, but at least he links to the appropriate court documents so you can ignore his analysis and do your own if you're so inclined.

The real questions are things like what version of Linux infringed? Has that code been removed yet? I have to think it would be removed the minute people found out. Was the infringing code part of the main kernel, or something else? I seem to recall a mention of RHEL, so maybe it's specific to that.

That said, it's a real danger. Even if the patented code is removed, they can (and will) go after people for past damages. They're a patent troll, that's what they do. And you can expect all future cases to be filed in East Texas. There's also no more escape clause, because they'll just sue batches of people who are distributed all over the country or world and claim that East Texas is just as good a place as any because no forum would be more convenient.

The best fix for this is to get the law changed to eliminate software patents entirely. Maybe, just maybe, i4i will help with that, but I'm not sure. Reexamination requests are also in order. Hopefully this patent will get busted soon

Ultimately, this is just another reminder of why software patents are a bad thing.

Perhaps you are unaware that Google makes Android, or that Android uses a Linux kernel?

This makes Android the most likely target among Linux-based phones and tablets for the patent owners to go after next, since they have already established (until/unless Google can get it overturned on appeal) that their patent is valid against Google. They can try to leverage off that and bring in Android as just more instances of the same overall infringement.

What Florian seems to be insinuating is that Android application developers would be somehow at risk in some way from this ruling due to them having written programs that "use the teachings of the infringed patent claims in one way or another". What is that even supposed to mean?

If I write code to target a platform whose implementation infringes a patent somewhere deep 'beneath the hood' I am not liable to pay any damages for that, I did not ship infringing code and my code is agnostic to whether the platform infringes or not.

I cannot see the need (besides FUD) for Florian to have written that. He mixes cherry picked facts and analysis with wild speculation (commonly involving Android's 'bleak future') and hopes that people won't see the difference.

Edit: As another example, see how he conveniently forgot to mention the factor of the finding coming from an East Texas court when he extrapolates from this verdict to all Android related patent suits.