Glaskowsky actually read the patent, detected the 3 independent claims and compared them to what the kindle does. He concludes that claim 96 and 129, since they are so weak compared to claim 1, don't really matter. This is a different conclusion than the one I came to (which is that claim 1 will never stand because it's a business method patent, and claim 129 doesn't cover the kindle because of the simultaneity requirement). Glaskowsky doesn't seem to be aware of the issues associated with business method patents (e.g. do they transform anything, if they don't, is a particular device involved) since 2006, altho as I have noted, the fact this sucker got granted in 2007 indicates that someone thought it held up.
Glaskowsky points out that 1 also doesn't apply if the book is pre-encrypted. I had not noticed that, but he's right.
His argument that Amazon won't find prior art to disable this puppy seems a little weak to me. There was a bunch of prior art analysis that went into 1-click and someone got chunks of that puppy overturned as a hobby/charity activity after turning up the Digicash prior.
I'm a little mystified that people aren't working a little harder on the prior art question. I haven't seen any mention of RocketBook yet, and it definitely used encrypted/decrypted e-books.
ETA: fjtorres, in the comments on the CNET Sandoval article, mentions the Rocket e-book.
Slate review of Rocket e-Book and another reader (which distributed via phone line direct to the reader) in May 1999 (patent filed September 1999, IIRC).