I think it's perfectly legitimate for a company to just hold patents and sue others based on those patents (or, more likely, license them). That's a core aspect of the patent system.

The problem here isn't patent protections. It's bad patents. We're still going to see submarine patents for the next ~16 years, and I'm sure patent trolls will exist beyond that (unless there is reform), but the patent system isn't the problem here. It's just that so many bad patents get through.

> I think it's perfectly legitimate for a company to just hold patents and sue others based on those patents (or, more likely, license them). That's a core aspect of the patent system.

I could understand "inevitable consequence", but I can't see where you get "core aspect". Explain?

The patent system is meant to reward inventors, including inventors who don't have the capital for commercial manufacture of their invention (i.e. by licensing it to someone who does).

Applying for a patent is a costly and tedious process, so it's not strange the there are companies ready to take the work from individual inventor's hands. If that weren't allowed, large companies would have an advantage since they have a legal department. In any case, making a law against patent trolls would be difficult because if you require a minimum amount of non-patent work from them, they would simply meet that amount and keep on trolling. I think the solution is not to make rules against them specifically, but to change the incentives. First make sure patent applications are non-trivial. Second place the initial burden of evidence on the plaintiff to prove that their patent is actually being infringed.

But you're right, these people have no shame. But it's just not the patent troll, it's also a host of lawyers and judges who have interest in this stuff going on.

Last time I knew, examiners were graded on the number of patents granted, not rejected. Removing perverse incentives would help a lot.