So far so good, as far as the court is concerned...
* trivial patent derived from prior art
* add in a tiny nuance about host systems "deciding" something (rather than the client device)
* sit on it for a while and sell it to a patent troll
* new owner, use that nuance to try and prove the worthiness of the patent
* sue the bollocks off of every deep pocket that's already (even vaguely) doing this royalty free, shortly before the patent would expire, even (1995 plus ~20 years...)
* lose court battle (which effectively revokes your patent), and also the appeal
Yep. I think the court did the right thing, denying a patent troll his bogus claim.