If this was what was happening in the majority of cases, I would agree. But it isn't - big companies frequently buy patents just to go after and shut-down/settle with smaller companies who are posing a threat. Like Apple against HTC. Like Microsoft against Salesforce.com.
If there was a shorter life span, or stronger enforcement over patent squatting, fewer people would be standing against it. But saying the VCs pushing this have an agenda, without citing a single source, and thinking that patents do anything now other than pay lawyers and slow innovation, is narrow-minded.
Let me be clear. You think Microsoft has sued more companies than smaller companies have sued Microsoft? Wow, that's some serious revisionist history. Just in the past two years MS has been sued by at least seven companies -- and I don't recall any of them being trolls.
MS doesn't need to sue, they just do intimidation and forces small companies to pay them licenses, taxing all their competitors. I'll let you google the glory details. Also, when MS sue a company for a patent on the FAT file system, that's because they refused to pay them royalties/licenses unlike the 100 more companies they secretly threatened before them.
If there was a shorter life span, or stronger enforcement over patent squatting, fewer people would be standing against it. But saying the VCs pushing this have an agenda, without citing a single source, and thinking that patents do anything now other than pay lawyers and slow innovation, is narrow-minded.