I'll have a go:

1. Already answered: you do not have implied odds against them. I would also say that part of the positional advantage is denied (because once all-in, position does not matter anymore).

2. You don't play speculative hands against them that need implied odds to be profitable (small SC's, Axs, etc). Rather, you play hands that dominate their range, meaning hands that have a positive all in EV against their range. All-in domination is what you want. I am also not so sure, but if they are the kind who play two streets, you could possibly consider playing dominated, but robust hands, such as 9Ts and stack them on a favorable flop when they can't get away from their hand.

3. You want position on the good shorties, same as you want position on any good player. But of course, given the choice between a good shortie having position on me or a good full stacked player having position on me, I will always go for the shortie having position on me. You can profit by having the bad shorties on your left because they will play their cards badly against your range, and also I would say because position matters less against shorties (especially the bad ones) than against full stacked players. You also profit by loosing potentially less to the short stack who has position on you than you could loose to a full stack with position on you. Basically, this is the application of the "money flows clockwise" principle. In practice, what I am doing when I get to a new table with unknown players at the micros is start with the assumption that the short stacks are the bad players and that the full stacks are the better players. I try to have two big stacks to my right and two short stacks to my left.

Feel free to flame if I botched this up.