Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
I reject that definition and suggest that it should instead mean, "a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces one or more patent(s) that do not fullfil the requirement of being non-obvious and inventive against one or more alleged infringers in any manner, especially if considered aggressive or opportunistic, or with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention".
When I say patent troll, I mean someone using patents to delay innovation instead of using them to encourage innovation (as they were intended). In this case, there's clear prior art and they are suing after the company responsible was acquired by Red Hat. I'm not going to accept that someone is not a patent troll if they happen to have an application or framework that, e.g., redirects users to a online store for purchase of the full version of an app after tapping a link. Everyone in the field, the companies starting the lawsuits included, know that these patents should not have been issued.
The patent for the Mirror File System was applied for in 2001, years after Novell Netware had exactly this sort of thing built into the operating system. That is just one example of dozens that will surely come to light. Distributed, replicated filesystems have been around for decades.
