Poorly written article, even if the spirit is right. There are too many of these patent outrage articles that have no understanding of patents, and don't take the time to get it right. Writing "The patent claims to cover a "printing and publishing system" that uses "a communication network." Amazing, right? " is unnecessary and intellectually dishonest - the patent is linked in the text, so choosing to leave out ~190 words of the first independent claim is intellectual dishonesty (or laziness), plain and simple.
In patent claims, every word matters. There are three independent claims in the patent, and the shortest is 110 words, and each of them matters. This is a bad patent, but it's also a bad article, and that doesn't help anyone. Articles like this is why most patent professionals dismiss criticism against the patent system as uninformed, lazy rants, and fail to appreciate the actual criticism.
Also, from an editorial stand-point it's probably not a good idea to use IPRs as an acronym for the fairly obscure legal term of inter partes reviews, when your article is all about IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights). It's like using IP to mean intellectual property in an article about internet protocol addresses.
