Her point was that the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place. It shouldn't take the expense of big enterprise teams of corporate lawyers taking it to a jury trial to say that the patent wasn't infringed (I take it that's all it was, and that the patent hasn't actually been invalidated, either).

Copy-and-pasting from a comment I just made in another thread about how merely having an obvious patent does cause problems: You don't have to contest the patent for it to be suppressing others' design. I once worked for a company that made a humidifying air pump. We had to have the water tank held in with a removable flap rather than a door because our main competitor had patented 'holding the tank in with a hinged flap/door'. Sure, you could fight it in court, down the track, after hardware design (which is much more expensive than people realise). Or you could move onto the next problem and have a slightly inferior product.