I think gst's comment makes a lot of sense, although it might or might not apply to this particular case.

The assumption is that the patent system is one that is fundamentally broken, resulting (among other things) in such patent trolls who exploit it to their own benefit.

Suing them for patent infringement can be seen as fighting "within the system", in effect legitimizing the system, instead of calling it out for being totally absurd in the first place.

With the danger of falling under Godwin's law, here is an analogy: imagine someone is persecuted by an oppressive regime for being part of an ethnic minority. Someone might oppose this persecution by pointing out that the person is in fact only 25% part of the ethnic group (one grandparent), whereas the law applies only above 50%. This could be seen as a worse response than taking to the streets to protest against the regime.

EDIT: I am explaining what I understood to be gst's point, I hope I am not totally misrepresenting it.

I can only assume the original commenter had a problem with the terminology. Obviously patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal (at least not intrinsically), considering their business model relies on working within the current legal system.

But that's the point, if they are doing nothing illegal and we are not challenging the legal framework either, what right do we have to give them a derogatory name.