[manarth]

  what counts as a "troll" case

In general, "patent troll" refers to NPEs - Non Practicing Entities - companies that don't produce/manufacture/sell anything (except patent licences).

Most companies avoid patent litigation in all but the most severe instances, because so many people hold patents for the most obvious of things that they might well get counter-sued by the company they're suing. Mutually Assured Destruction in patent form.

NPEs don't have this concern, so they can send out all sorts of dubious claims without fear of countersuit.

An alliance against NPEs (with a rule preventing NPEs from joining) might well be worthwhile.

[crottypeter]

The law of unintended consequences says that our next problem will be "non-NPE trolls".

"We made a batch of 10 'somethings' last year, so we are not an NPE or a troll!"

[Natanael_L]

How do you sue a genuine NPE (just a patent holding company with lawyers) over patent infringement? Because that's going to be your only counterweapon, beyond funding litigation for members.

[MagnumOpus]

You don't sue an NPE for infringement (because they don't practice).

If you have deep pockets and a grudge, you would pay your legal team to try and have every single one of their patents/revenue streams invalidated.