Alledgedly the SLFC itself has argued that one would need to get the explicit consent from all copyright holders to get a new license. However, that seems unlikely to be true. (I am no lawyer)
1) Even if my license right is revoked, the "no-one may be excluded" GPL will always allow me to re-get the kernel code from anyone who offers it, and I'll have a new license.
2) As Corbet wrote, a new version might also be sufficient.
3) If Sony violates the GPL for its ebook readers and gets a gpl life time penalty, they just re-found themselves as a new legal entity to work around that ;).
Seriously, even for copyright trolls, I really don't see how this would play out in court. Contrary to the reports, the GPL does not say that you need explicit consent to heal your license violation, it is simply quiet about how the healing process would work. The most interesting part of the story is how all media outlets were eager to post this with an eye-catching headline, citing Florian Mueller. (First they had called him patent layer, then they called him patent expert, now at least they call him a patent-blogger).