This seems to be similar to asking the question "how many bank robbers families went hungry because the Fed's confiscated the money the bank robber stole." I'm not a big proponent on software patents, most of them aren't really novel. But company A invents something cool. Company B likes it, copies it, and sells it. Of course it was a cool invention, so company B's customer love it. And of course the B's customers are going to hate it, and complain when B can no longer provide the invention. That is kind of like the whole point behind patent protection. If B doesn't want to license the invention then they need to come up with some other solution, that might not be quite as cool.

From TFA:

Apparently if you tell someone who claims their brother or cousin is a drug dealer, to tell their potential LEO boss that you don't know what your brother does, is a crime against children!

If someone said their brother was a drug dealer, are you required to call the cops? You have no evidence, other than hearsay. If you knew that person was going to apply for a LEO position, would you tell them "I wouldn't mention that you know what your brother does?" Well there you go, you are a heinous criminal and should be locked away.

Did you really read the article? From TFA:

One agent was posing as a brother of a drug dealer, and apparently he told the agent to say "look I don't know what he does."
Of course the prosecutors brought up the fact that he supposedly taught 9 sex offenders. Although they offered no evidence that he taught them to hide crimes, and in fact in one instance he notified authorities.

Is everyone just ignoring the reasons given for a recall? From TFA:

Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"

You know what would be cheaper, AND better? Be PC, don't profile anyone, in fact just get rid of security. No lines, no wait, no wasted money on machines that don't work. And let us bring our water on the plane.

Yeah... Right
A government agent isn't going to stop a suicide bomber, but neither is the TSA. About time to do away with the security theatre nonsense.

So you are ok with sharing, as long as the person sharing doesn't make any money off of it? I guess your argument is "if they didn't pay for it, then they wouldn't have given me any money for it, but if they paid someone else, I want that money." This is fine, except for the fact that many people would pay for it. But free is cheaper.

And their particular method is different from the other methods how? Reading the patent, about the only thing that is different is that they use the reply as the content.
The method involves using keywords from the content. Applying some sort of weighting that meets a threshold, and a few other things. How does this method differ from a method to introduce advertising based on other content?
Surely figuring out the reply isn't novel. Surely looking for keywords isn't novel. Surely weighting isn't novel. There is some stuff in there related to email and databases, but the only thing that really matters is keywords and weighting and replies. I don't see how this is novel, or different than any other content based syste,

How is this remotely patentable? It is just taking some content, and presenting an ad based on the content (and keywords in the content). What does it mater that the content is a reply vs a web page vs anything else?
Ohhh "determining reply content associated with the reply" If only three was some standard way to determine the content of an email. What is novel about this? Once you have a system to provide an ad based on keywords, what does it matter if you pull keywords from a reply, or from something else?

"So what are you in for?"
"I patented some software..."

While you may be right in your first assertion, your analogy is flawed. If you DID NOT know your friend brought a gun, and your friend shot and killed someone. You will be liable (well tried for homicide) in the guys death. Shoot, if the cops show up, and shoot your friend, you will be "liable" for his death. Basically if you are involved in a felony, and someone is killed, then EVERYONE guilty of the felony will be charged with homicide as well.

"Hey Bob are you coming to the party?"
"Yep, on my way, driving down the freeway."
"Ok great. When you get here, go through the back door."
Now I expect bob to not answer my text or read it until he can safely do so. I've sent him a message I expect him to read when he arrives, or stops. But somehow I am responsible?

Or, I don't know, maybe we can pull over, stop the vehicle, and check the text message.
Or better yet, if the boss has "urgent" info that has to be answered right this second, or the guy loses his job. Perhaps the boss can CALL the person, rather than just text him and hope that the text gets to him. Cause you know, just because the text is sent, doesn't mean the driver gets it, and will get it right that second.

There is some protection, its called vaccines, and pretty much the rest of the US population has taken them. So why bother?