Morale boosters are potentially helpful, though. If the perception shifts from "hopeless" to "fighting chance", and we start seeing more trolls defeated in court, the story can be framed much more usefully. Right now it's "businesses are being shaken down for violating frivolous patents". That's not great because it's too easy to argue against superficially. All the trolls have to say is "If these patents are so frivolous, why do so many businesses agree to settle out of court?" There's a good answer to that question, but now you're having a debate, so you've already lost.
But if the story is "the courts are clogged with frivolous patent suits because the USPTO isn't doing its damned job", there is no debate.
People don't like to think. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. If a debate has no tribal affiliation, the two sides both seem to have an argument, and there's no authoritative answer, people throw up their hands and say "well, it's complicated". Change the story so that the courts can be that authority, and people will just take their answer as read.
So the issue stops being "are patent trolls a problem?" and becomes "how do we fix patent trolling?"
But if the story is "the courts are clogged with frivolous patent suits because the USPTO isn't doing its damned job", there is no debate.
People don't like to think. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. If a debate has no tribal affiliation, the two sides both seem to have an argument, and there's no authoritative answer, people throw up their hands and say "well, it's complicated". Change the story so that the courts can be that authority, and people will just take their answer as read.
So the issue stops being "are patent trolls a problem?" and becomes "how do we fix patent trolling?"