I approached it like a thought experiment, and it isn't really a workable strategy, especially not something I would argue should be eployed in perpetuatiy. It

I approached it like a thought experiment, and it isn't really a workable strategy, especially not something I would argue should be eployed in perpetuatiy. It is an issue that should be handled legislatively, but in this thought experiment/hypthetical consider the objective an infinite game where the objective is war vs. patent trolls: A patent troll typical incorporates a vehicle and often they are public. This limits their risk as they are not opened to lawsuites (as many companies) but in cases of partnerships it is sometimes possible to target the partners themselves. When they take what is essentially a SPAC[1] public, it is likely only insiders invest. They must disclose their assets and thus, the "portfolio" is what is taken public. Even outside investors are likley either people contributing patents, banks/fin inst. with knowledge of space/lawyers/esecutives executing strategy. This extremely high level of consolidation would make it much easier to manipulate their share price. This is some of what I suggested above. Either during the IPO, in the media, or during trading trying to negatively impact patent trolls to disuade them from existing. What I suggested orignally may not be the correct strategy, but the thought was that it could be possible and very situationally, cooperate in a market as consolidated as this to make the cost of trolling so high that it would be unprofitable or very risky, ideally legislation/patent reform would fix these problems but this would be the patch. This would be a combination of hostile takeovers of companies, buying and open sourcing patents, and actively trying to make the risk and cost of capital so high, or an executives failure so humiliating there would be less people trying to raise, and the difficuly would go up substantially. Obviously, massive market coordination would be very difficult, but it is considerably easier to do this if a company is neccessarily consolidated as (I suspect) trolls might be, given they aren't real companies and are quite niche. Another possible benefit is that if a patent troll tried to dump a portfolio into another shell after a loss, or otherwise do something negative, a minority stake could bring lawsuits against the individual person. For example, a group of 10 troll execs would not think twice about started an identical company and moving assets packages there. If you were a shareholder of a real company, you wouldn't give away a lot of "IP" for free but they can, as they pass it to themselves or partners. A minority, but legal sharholder, could sue the individual executives for breach of fiduciary responsibiltiy and other than raising the risk financially, personal individuals could face risk if not operating 100% above board. [1] Special Purpose Acquision Vehicle edit; Also, being inside would allow information to be accessed about internals. Outside investors could be found and outed (if actual entities) and tried in the media. E.G. if a hedge fund or firm had money in, they would be outed and scandalized for hampering innovation and PE & VC funds would refuse(if possible) their investments in future funds if they continued to fund such poor investments. A logical argument could be made to such hedgefunds as well, that it is possible for a risky mediocre return from a patent troll, they may actually cause damage to their own portfolio if one company is in the ecosystem or directly affected by a PT>