Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people.
The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringement lawsuits any worse than out-sourcing credit card processing, overdue account collections, or web design?
If you're interested in maximizing the amount of useful stuff produced by the economy, having patents sold off to Intellectual Ventures is far better than having them continue to be owned by companies which want to do nothing other than shut down their competition.
This is actually an interesting point. Both collection agents and patent trolls go about asking people to pony up the payment for goods (to put it colloquially) and they both do it on behalf of a third party, for whom doing it by themselves will involve a lot more of a hassles.
The distinction comes in the fact that in the case of collection agents, the payments owed to the goods are seemingly legitimate or at least socially accepted (perhaps collection agencies that come about collecting payments after those subscription-renewal or hidden-monthly-fee scams might be construed as as much a nuisance as patent trolls). I guess socially, asking payments for ideas only seems reasonable if the persons going about asking for the payments themselves come up with the idea.
It is a little weird and subtle. Can someone come up with a better distinction?
Living in a civilized society means that we sometimes have to play by rules we don't like (until we can convince everybody else that it's time to change the rules).
the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.
Why is outsourcing torture any worse than outsourcing web design with WebGL? Extraordinary rendition vs. extraordinary rendering!
Hmm, maybe it has something to do with the nature of the thing being outsourced.
I'm not getting into the issue of whether patents are good or bad; my question here is why do people consider out-sourced patent lawsuits to be so much worse than in-house patent lawsuits?
Your question was why outsourcing X was any worse than outsourcing Y or Z.
The answer is because different things are different.
As to your current question as to why outsourcing X is worse than in-house X, you're obstructing discussion by trying to preempt discussion of the merits of X in the first place.
If you don't want to get into the issue of whether software patents are good or bad, then you want to remove the only meaningful part of the discussion.
To use the torture example, ask yourself: Would you rather be detained in the U.S., or in Syria? It's begging the question to assume that the outcome is the same either way, i.e. torture, death.
Behavior changes depending on consequences. It's very hard to get soldiers to kill "the enemy" in close combat, when they can see the other person is a human being like them. It gets easier as you increase the gulf of humanity between them; shelling from distance, or dropping bombs from altitude, or now, flying drones from complete safety with only a video screen and not the smells or screams or feeling of personal danger to the pilot.
Behavior tends to completely devolve when one side can engage in aggression essentially consequence-free, or believes it can.
All you have to do is look at the civility of discourse on the Internet, or appreciate the ideological battle the West has against religious martyrdom that leads to suicide bombers. The latter is a huge concern, because you can't have a functioning society where nothing can dissuade destructive behavior.
Alternatively, patent trolls are like the introduction of an aggressive exogenic species into an ecosystem. With no natural predators, the new species will wreak havoc on the existing balance.
Soon it will be more profitable to sue people than to make anything, and then making anything will just become a liability. Much like investment bankers playing games with financial instruments to become wealthy on paper without making anything real, finance's evil twin will be patent trolls who become wealthy by destroying real wealth.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates, 1991
The only way we've gotten around the standstill, to the extent we have, is via cross-licensing and mutually-assured destruction.
So the tl;dr to your question is: Because the outsourcing in this case creates an asymmetric warfare model. The "outsourcing" is kind of like a "godmode" switch on an FPS game. The guy who runs the server goes around fragging everyone else while invulnerable which ruins it for everyone but him.
