My suggestion would be to have all members agree in advance to submit disputes between members to binding arbitration.

I would also suggest it should be the stated policy of the organization not to defer at all to the PTO on the question of patent validity. Everyone should expect that the arbiters would consider most issued patents (at least, most issued software patents) to fail the obviousness test.

I obviously didn't work out all the details. I would imagine that there would have to be some kind of a mutual agreement to not go after member companies.

Also, in order to be accepted you can't be a pure IP business. You have to actually have products in the market. In other words, a real business.

Lots of details to work out mostly by legal minds.

The fundamental problem is that it assumes that all patents are invalid, and that no legitimate grievance can exist over the companies' intellectual property. While this may be a popular opinion on HN, I doubt many actual companies are going to be willing to sign away their right to sue when another member company brazenly steals their work.

Just needs to precise definition of patent troll to be right and only have the cross licensing in place when specifically defending against one.