Very large companies who rely upon technology in diverse fields seek a weak patent system. They want to adapt their products, add product lines and expand offerings without worrying about whether they are infringing patents. Their size is their dominating feature, not innovation. A patent owner's monopolistic right to exclude competitors infuriates Google, Apple and Microsoft who want to run over smaller companies, not compensate them. Patents as the great market equalizer, so they are an anathema to big companies that would otherwise dominate. The troll argument is nonsense. If an inventor wants to sell his invention -- likely because he cannot afford to take on Google in a patent war -- he should be able to do so, and the purchaser should be able to enforce the patent rights. The value of a patent should not depend on the identity of its owner. The weed out weak patent argument is also nonsense when the only thing that makes the patent weak is a stacked deck of unfair PTO rules.

Contrary to Justice Breyer's view that " ... the challenger-friendly legal rules make sense if the goal of the government was to weed out bad patents and take on so-called patent trolls ..." what has been happening is that the large corporations are abusing the process by challenging perfectly good patents issued to smaller competitors in order to drive those smaller competitors from the market and steal their technologies.

This is entirely opposite what was supposed to be the intention of the new patent laws, but it's more likely that the large companies knew exactly what they were lobbying for.