There are two important differences. 1 Patent trolls are non practicing entities, ie they don’t produce anything other than lawsuits(pure rent seeking), big companies may not be producing on all of their patents, but they typically provide at least some societal value. 2 big companies aren’t typically making direct revenue from their patents, but rather use them as a moat to prevent challengers (which seems more similar to what patents are intended for even if it is often abused by being overly broad)
>That's not a part of any commonly accepted definition of "patent troll" that I'm aware of
It's exactly the definition I've heard of for the past 20+ years.
>This is what makes one a patent troll.
No, it isn't.
Think about what a troll does: it hides under a publicly-owned bridge, and then forces anyone who wants to cross the bridge to pay a toll.
This is exactly what the NPEs do with their BS patents: they get a patent on some obvious BS, and then charge people money to use "their IP".
Big companies don't do this: they use patents to prevent competitors from operating. They don't grant licenses to their competitors at all. Trolls in mythology didn't refuse bridge access to anyone, they just forced them to pay a toll.
The entire point of being an NPE is to get money from licensing (and lawsuits).
