Thanks for reading. Sorry if this was confusing! Microsoft said that i4i was a patent troll despite the court repeatedly telling Microsoft to not do that. The judge referred to Microsoft's repeated ignoring of its instructions as "persistent" etc. i4i had an operating business; it wasn't a patent troll. That operating business is niche and small, but it is real. I have updated that sentence to make it clearer. Thanks for your feedback!
Depends on one's definition. I don't think "not having a real product/service" is the defining charateristic of "patent troll". Here's what Wikipedia says.
> attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art
> often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question
Looking back at it again now, I can see the intent of the original sentence where "it had an operating business" refers to i4i, but "in a manner that was..." refers to Microsoft. I didn't get the change of subject at that point.
Maybe an additional comma would have been all that I needed to figure it out: "even though it had an operating business, in a manner that was..."
