What most people miss about rackets like this is that even after you pay off vultures like these they almost never offer you indemnity. That means some one else can sue you for exactly the same technology with a similar vague patent claim. In fact, they probably will, since you seem willing to pay.
The broken patent system has bumbled along precisely because large companies generally have cross licensing deals with each other, leaving only the little guy subject to vague infringement claims. Now that there's a well-funded company which doesn't require 'incoming' licenses (by not making anything), there's real money involved for the big guys.
On another day I might be arguing for abolishing patents, but I just don't see how this is an abuse of the current system.
What _is_ broken is that the patent office and courts have completely ignored that whole "obvious to a practitioner of the art" thing. Patents are supposed to protect novel inventions. Instead people get patents for deciding to enter a market first.
Invalidating Amazon's "1-click shopping" patent shouldn't require prior art, but just a simple poll of the tech community saying "duh, that's what cookies were designed for".