> A company that technically produces a product implementing a patent, but nonetheless engages in trollish tactics still qualifies as a troll. That's certainly

> A company that technically produces a product implementing a patent, but nonetheless engages in trollish tactics still qualifies as a troll. That's certainly possible in principle, but it would be pretty stupid. One big advantage an NPE has in litigation is that it can't effectively be counter-sued: it has no business against which an injunction can be issued, and (if set up as a shell company, as trolls generally are) it has no assets that can be levied against. Furthermore, since it's not operating a business, it is exceedingly unlikely to be (even arguably) infringing any patents owned by its victims. For a company producing a product to expose itself to the risk of countersuit by trolling would be idiotic, particularly as it's completely unnecessary -- all it has to do is spin off a shell company.