If they won in court against Apple, they're not a "patent troll". They invented something which Apple copied.
Apple has patented, and tried to enforce, the claim that they have the exclusive right to devices with a screen on the front and round corners.[1] They lost, but they're still litigating that.
A company patented the concept of making toast well after toasters were on the market. Another patented recurring payments of online service long after that was normal. Another guy modified a patent to cover podcasting after podcasting was invented and in use.
Point being, something being patented != something being invented. It just means examiners agreed with the claims of a piece of paper then turned that into a piece of intellectual property. The wins then mean courts agreed that claims in that property match some other product to some degree. Neither means someone copied someone. Whether that's true varies on a case by case basis.
I think it's telling that many defendants develop their own, "infringing" tech without ever hearing of the plantiff or their patents. Hard to copy what you don't know exists. In science, we call it independent invention but patent system makes that impossible. Plus, on software patents, what programmers have you met who comb through patent databases to solve their day-to-day problems? I've never met one.
Concluding, patents are legal pronouncements that may or may not cover inventions. Rulings on copying may be right or bullshit. Copying is usually unknowing or independent invention because nobody solves problems with patent databases in our industry. I remember running into maybe 3 or 4 worth looking at in Google search solving a problem. One was novel but others patented ideas already in products or Comp Sci literature. Well-known ideas that were foundational to product success. (sighs)
Not at all. With how widely known patent trolling is, there's nothing inherent in a patent dispute victory that signifies the patent protects a valid invention and that the party suing isn't a troll. All it means is that the troll succeeded in their trolling. That's equivalent to suggesting that if a person was found not guilty of a crime they actually committed, they didn't actually commit it.
The legal system does not adjudicate reality.
PS: The rounded corners patent is equally offensive as those bought up and profited from by trolls in the courts. Patents don't intrinsically signify authentic invention. They should, but there are far too many counter examples to rely on such a claim.
Apple has patented, and tried to enforce, the claim that they have the exclusive right to devices with a screen on the front and round corners.[1] They lost, but they're still litigating that.
[1] http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-corners/