Lodsys is part of Intellectual Ventures, really? It makes sense, but I guess I'll have to listen to the podcast to find the citation.
A plainer way of putting this is that IV outsources its dirty work for a 10% cut while retaining plausible deniability.
They would have gotten away with it in the Oasis case, except that a couple of brave victims fought back and (as the broadcast told it) were saved by a fluke: a document from 20 years ago that contradicted the patent filing. The patent wasn't invalidated because it was laughable, but because the "inventor" lied about it being all his idea.
Since IV has a similar murky connection to Lodsys' patents as to Oasis', and since they have put out the same non-denial-denial verbiage about both entities, and since we now know that they were taking 90% of Oasis' winnings all along, it's reasonable to suspect that they have an analogous deal with Lodsys. But this hasn't been demonstrated. The OP is arguably being a bit of a troll by titling his piece as if it has, then adding the word "allegedly" in later.
Edit: here is a story about the Guardian trying to get Intellectual Ventures go on the record about its relationship to Lodsys. (Spoiler: they couldn't.) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/27/intellectu... . And here is Myhrvold saying that Intellectual Ventures sold the patent to Lodsys, although he carefully avoids saying anything about ongoing business terms between his company and Lodsys. http://features.slashdot.org/story/13/04/02/1926255/nathan-m...
As the director of a UK company every time I here this I am simply flabbergasted. In the UK all limited companies/partnerships accounts are a matter of public record.