[mcherm]

Perhaps apple ABUSES patents (that's a different discussion I do not want to get into), but I prefer to reserve the term "patent troll" for those individuals or organizations that do not actually perform invention nor manufacture, sales and marketing of actual products.

[mc808]

That doesn't seem like a very useful distinction. Suppose new patent troll legislation comes along that would prevent enforcing a patent that isn't actively being used or developed (similar to trademarks). The trolls would just produce a cheap gizmo that depends on the patent in some way, and then blame the lack of sales on patent infringement. They'd colloquially still be called "trolls" based on a subjective judgment that they aren't really serious about selling the gizmo.

When someone calls Apple et al. a patent troll, I think it's from the perception that they 1) apply for overly broad or obvious patents, and 2) enforce the patents offensively. Also a very subjective definition, but it doesn't seem any worse than arbitrary "uses/plans to use" criteria.

[bryanlarsen]

That's a little bit too narrow. There are lots of companies out there that manufacture products but derive a large percentage of their revenue from patents. For example, the chips that Qualcomm makes have been described by some as a loss leader to hide and justify their very lucrative patent licensing business.

[piyush_soni]

I use that term for companies judging from how useless the patent they are defending is. Like "slide to unlock", "rounded rectangles of the device" etc.