Apple's chips targeted in a new patent infringement suit

Patents from 2004 and 2005 would have to be extremely general to match anything being designed today. 

There is nothing illegal with any company that "exhibits patent-troll like behaviour." Designating them with the demeaning word "trolls" shows bias. In a free market there are many speculative ways to make money, and obtaining patents and testing them in court is a legal and valid way to make money. Apple itself probably buys patents by buying companies that own patents, which is also a form of speculating in the patent trade. It's actually smart behaviour. I've never seen AppleInsider criticize Apple for buying companies with patents, for the patents. What's the difference? Why the double standard?

When Apple bought 17,000 patents from Intel two years ago, AppleInsider didn't call Apple a "troll" but rather suggested it was smart of Apple to purchase them.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/25/apple-buys-intel-4g-and-5g-modem-patent-portfolio-for-1-billion <--

22july2013 said:

There is nothing illegal with any company that "exhibits patent-troll like behaviour." Designating them with the demeaning word "trolls" shows bias. In a free market there are many speculative ways to make money, and obtaining patents and testing them in court is a legal and valid way to make money. Apple itself probably buys patents by buying companies that own patents, which is also a form of speculating in the patent trade. It's actually smart behaviour. I've never seen AppleInsider criticize Apple for buying companies with patents, for the patents. What's the difference? Why the double standard?

When Apple bought 17,000 patents from Intel two years ago, AppleInsider didn't call Apple a "troll" but rather suggested it was smart of Apple to purchase them.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/25/apple-buys-intel-4g-and-5g-modem-patent-portfolio-for-1-billion <--

-----------------

There is no double standard.
The difference is that Apple makes  products with its patents, It does not buy them just to litigate.  
The term is well defined as shown below and if the term fits a company then it should be used to describe the company.

pat·ent troll
noun
DEROGATORY•INFORMAL

a company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services.

1. "patent trolls are quashing the next, nascent wave of tech innovation"

There is no requirement under the patent system that the patent inventor needs to also be the manufacturer who produces the goods based on his patent. That is a myth. The whole patent system encourages innovation by allowing people who don't manufacture things to get rewarded from designing things without having to manufacture them. You don't need to build mousetraps to be able to patent one. You aren't a "troll" just because you are an inventor and not a manufacturer. 

By saying, as you do, Appelsauce007, that only companies big enough to manufacture their patents are legitimate patent holders, you are undermining one of the great benefits of the patent system. Under your logic, if you bequeathed a patent to your child upon your death, your child would become "a patent troll" because they didn't produce their own goods or services based on the patent they inherited form you. That's wrong. I celebrate the fact that people can hold patents without being manufacturers, whereas you deride it.

22july2013 said:

There is no requirement under the patent system that the patent inventor needs to also be the manufacturer who produces the goods based on his patent. That is a myth. The whole patent system encourages innovation by allowing people who don't manufacture things to get rewarded from designing things without having to manufacture them. You don't need to build mousetraps to be able to patent one. You aren't a "troll" just because you are an inventor and not a manufacturer. 

By saying, as you do, Appelsauce007, that only companies big enough to manufacture their patents are legitimate patent holders, you are undermining one of the great benefits of the patent system. Under your logic, if you bequeathed a patent to your child upon your death, your child would become "a patent troll" because they didn't produce their own goods or services based on the patent they inherited form you. That's wrong. I celebrate the fact that people can hold patents without being manufacturers, whereas you deride it.

Your points are valid, but let's test your actual position.

Do you support Apple hanging onto Lightning, or would you prefer that they fully move all of their products to USB-C?

I fail to see how the patent system "encourages" innovation when it clearly can be used to block the sale of products that supposedly use certain patents. Tons and tons of money is lost just battling patents when that same money and energy could be used moving the world forward. So yes, I agree that companies that hold patents solely to profit from them alone are trolls. They are not contributing to the world in any way.

Note, patent trolls are not the same as the inventors of those patents. The inventors are contributing to the world. Patent trolls are just trying to profit from the inventors' hard work.