> "Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical purposes this very naive definition. " No, it's not. It's the actual definition th

> "Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical purposes this very naive definition. " No, it's not. It's the actual definition that exists to draw a distinction between the unique situation posed by non-practicing entities and the added extortionate situation NPEs present, completely divorced from any concern as to whether their patents are particularly good, bad or whatever else. If you want to say Apple has funded patent trolling, that's perfectly fine, because it's true. But that doesn't mean Apple's lawsuits against Samsung -- nor Samsung's against Apple -- are patent trolling. > "Conflating a specific lawsuit does not lump every action as "patents are bad" as I used a specific example based on the merits." You can certainly make a point about given actions being more or less conscionable on the merits. But even unconscionable actions simply are not trolling if they're undertaken by practicing entities. If Apple were to fund IV and an IV subsidiary sues you, that's trolling, arguably by Apple, because you can't sue, threaten, cross-license, etc with Apple directly to make it go away. If Apple were to sue you directly with the same hypothetical patent, that is not "trolling" because you can bring the typical array of legal strategies to the table.