The "don't blame the player, blame the game" argument appears here regularly. I think it's valid in those places where the players don't make the rules. But in a variety of concentrated industries in the US, big players, rule-enforcer and rule-makes are so closely tied that it is crucial that we aim at all of them if we're going to address a given problem in a given industry.
If you want to fight trolls mano-a-mano in lawsuits to either invalidate patents or at least knock them down in relation to a particular product or company, then more power to you, but I personally would find it terrifying to fight such a lawsuit myself if my company DEPENDS on the victory of the lawsuit.
I'd gladly (once my company is profitable, anyway) donate to the cause to help take a troll down, however. :)
Look at it from the perspective of the patents (in a Dawkins sense). Patents want to make money. Patents grant exclusivity to something valuable. In a capitalist society they will naturally be acquired by whoever can make the most money. Maybe not initially but over time they will find the right (value maximizing) host. There is an inevitability to this. The value maximizing host seem to be so called patent trolls.
The role of government is to set the rules/bounds for capitalism. With patents you could argue that there is a problem with the rules. But I don't think you can blame the players once the rules are set. Capitalism is not about morality, but profit maximizing and resource allocation. The solution is simple. Change the rules of the game.
As a side note Paul Graham's patent pledge attacks the wrong side of the problem and will therefore not be effective. Instead create a pledge for companies that want to change the game and let them be vocal about it.
I vehemently disagree that you can "blame" the patents. It's humans all the way down.
I agree with you on the STRATEGY -- the best way to fix the problems is to change the rules. But I will continue to call people amoral/unethical and lob lots of hate in their direction when their behavior justifies it, regardless of whether they are technically breaking the law. A parasite is a parasite.
Completely non-novel patents being awarded by the thousands is the real problem. If the "trolls" were really just enforcing interesting and valid patents on behalf of individual inventors, that's one thing. But they're instead finding the most broad patents they can and using them to extort money from companies who are successful, sometimes regardless of applicability of the patent to the companies in question.
The fact that software can be patented at all is questionable in my opinion -- anything sufficiently complicated to be worthy of a software patent would be copyrightable. Anything less complicated should be held to an extremely high standard of novelty before being allowed a patent -- and even then I would put the time limit on such a patent at 5 years or less.
Just having an "idea" that no one has happened to already patent yet and sitting on until someone else thinks of it and implements it doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which is the underlying mission of all IP protections in the US at least.
The patent database is full of so much noise that no one is mining it for ideas and creating software based on it at this point; instead everyone is coming up with similar ideas, and pretty much BY DEFINITION those patents shouldn't be valid.