I don't get why they didn't mention a very obvious reason why Apple would sell a patent to a patent troll: They want the troll to sue someone with whom they ha

I don't get why they didn't mention a very obvious reason why Apple would sell a patent to a patent troll: They want the troll to sue someone with whom they have a reciprocal patent portfolio license. Most big companies are members of lots of these agreements, where any patent owned by one company is licensed to the other, and vice versa. If Apple is simply a licensee of the patent now, and doesn't own it, then presumably it wouldn't be part of their reciprocal licenses with other companies any more, and the troll would be able to sue? Please correct me if I'm wrong, here. (The most likely way I could be wrong is that the standard reciprocal agreements cover all patents owned during the term of the license, in perpetuity -- i.e., selling a patent doesn't invalidate the reciprocal license. Even then, they may be planning to sign a new reciprocal patent license with, say, Samsung, who just won the ability to block shipments of iOS devices that support HPSA, but they still want someone else to be able to sue Samsung...?)