I think the grandparent post pretty clearly demonstrated a pretty good definition:
> Global is asserting questionable IP rights aggressively and counting on the high cost of defensive litigation to win, so we consider it a troll
If they are deliberately using shady claims (e.g. clearly overly broad interpretations of their patent) and counting on the high cost of litigation to get their desired outcome, I don't see what it matters whether they are a practicing or non practicing entity.
To me a patent troll has always been the patent equivalent of a SLAPP. Where you file not based on an expectation of winning, but that it will be less expensive for the defendant to settle than to fight the suit and win.
> Global is asserting questionable IP rights aggressively and counting on the high cost of defensive litigation to win, so we consider it a troll
If they are deliberately using shady claims (e.g. clearly overly broad interpretations of their patent) and counting on the high cost of litigation to get their desired outcome, I don't see what it matters whether they are a practicing or non practicing entity.