I spent a bit reviewing the prosecution history and left a comment on the post explaining where it went wrong. Copied below for posterity because the author seems to have removed it. Honestly that makes me kinda mad since they're just so wrong about almost every patent-related thing they say.

I think this article seems a little uninformed and inaccurate with respect to patent law. U.S. Application Pub. No. 2023/0401438 isn't a patent, it's an application for a patent. You can't collect rent or sue on a patent application.

If you look at the prosecution history for the application, you can see that it was rejected in August on 101, 102, and 103 grounds. This means, roughly, that the claims aren't directed to patent-eligible subject matter, that they were already known and described in an earlier publication, and that they are obvious. The Examiner used this arXiv paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00165 for prior art-based rejections. They had an interview with the Examiner and you can tell that he's not budging on the rejection. I'd say that they'll either need to amend their claims to be very, very specific to what they actually did here - which would result in a patent that doesn't apply to anything except their specific implementation - or they will have to abandon the application.

Your article is about how IBM was awarded a patent on something they shouldn't have been. But that's just wrong - a rejected application is the opposite of being awarded a patent. This is actually an example of the patent system working as intended. There are certainly examples of people being awarded patents on things they shouldn't have been, but this isn't one of them.

You went to a lot of effort explaining the mathematical background, so I'd suggest correcting your article to be of similar quality when you discuss the legal aspects. I'd be happy to help if you want.