Not... quite.<p>People criticize the patent trolls that are using generic&#x2F;obvious patents that <i>somehow</i> got approved when they should have been rejected.<p>&quot;Interface for opening a door by use of hand and twisting motion&quot; (aka: a doorknob)<p>Those types of patents. The ones worded ever so carefully as to try and sneak by being declined. When people refer to patent trolls they are mostly referring to the companies that <i>purchase the rights to these kinds of patents</i> and go on a litigation hunt of any big fish they find infringing to try and sucker out payments.<p>I do not see it as patent trolling when someone who say... invented a jetpack and has a patent on the technology in use going through a firm to sue an infringing superbody who has infringed upon the patent to sell their jetpack because they can mass manufacture and undersell the small business. That&#x27;s what I see as a &quot;legitimate use&quot; of patents.<p>On the other hand, &quot;Backpack to be worn to fly through the air through means of jet propulsion technology&quot; (aka: jetpack with no working functionality patented) is not a legitimate patent in my eyes and is sat on to prevent anyone from making jetpacks because the moment they invent a jetpack they&#x27;d be sued. That&#x27;s what stifles innovation.