I, I’m the author of the article and I already know that. The big difference between Roy van Rijn and I is that I only put algorithms whereas he put “ready to use” java code. On paper I should be bulletproof to any lawsuit since this article is nothing more than a very detailed version of the confounder Shazam paper (+some unexplained algorithms).

It's really unpleasant how they do not list the patents they think have been infringed. They just make a vague claim for everything, and realise that most people don't have the time, energy, nor money to challenge these broad claims in court and so most people just back down.