What a horribly wrong post. First off, I'm confident that many big-boy lawyers have been over those terms with a fine-toothed comb, so I wanted to lead with that, since I'm not a big-boy lawyer myself. All emphasis is mine.

1) Section 3.2 on data privacy makes it clear: "We will not access or use Your Content except as necessary to maintain or provide the Service Offerings" [or if legally and lawfully compelled]

Full stop. I shouldn't have to go on to number two.

2) Section 8.1: "As between you and us, you or your licensors own all right, title and interest in and to Your Content"

Full stop again. It's pretty clear. But, hey, there's a dead horse over there, and he looks like he needs a beatin'...

3) Same section: "[with exceptions noted later] we obtain no rights under this Agreement from you our your licensors to Your Content, including intellectual property rights"

But let's go directly to his quoted section.

4) "You will not assert ... against us ... any patent infringement or any other intellectual property infringement claim regarding any Service Offerings you have used"

So, if it's not clear: you can't sue Amazon claiming that Simple Storage Service (S3) comprised a patent violation. You can't sue Amazon saying that they're violating your intellectual property rights when they serve your web page from an edge cache in Zimbabwe. They've already stated unequivocally in prior sections that they assert ZERO rights to your code/images/markup/etc ("Your Content").

How is this person practicing law?