We're cool. Here's one back at you - where I think you are completely wrong! You suggest that the original inventor would be rewarded more in court than a "patent troll". IMO, it doesn't matter in the "marketplace". The value is the value.

I'll use a car resortation analogy. At Barrett-Jackson's, which car has greater value, the one offerred by the guy that restored the car and has pictures of the restoration process, or the same car offerred by the guy who bought the already-restored car (and those pictures) from the restorer and is now offering it for sale? It's the same exact car, the same complete package. IMO, the value is the same. You aren't buying the person who restored it, you're buying the result. With a patent dispute settlement/judgment, you aren't buying the inventor, you're buying permission for having used the tech and probably to use it in the future.

Where I could be wrong is if a jury (emotion) were involved. Just as a little old lady might get a better reward than a punk rocker, all else being equal. Not that there's anything wrong with being a punk rocker! But how often does a patent dispute make it to trial - 5% of the time?

I agree that the tag "patent troll" isn't very appealing on the surface. But, as with virtually everything, one must look below the surface and think it through. The term "patent thief" needs greater usage.

JMHOs,

SGE