There are many non-practicing entities that don't abuse their patents. ARM is an example.
I'd argue ARM isn't really an NPE. They actually sell useful designs that are actually implemented right? It's customers are paying for a design, architecture and software--not the freedom from being sued.
Being a new company with no history is, likely, strategic. Patent wars between practicing entities tend to be multi-front. Each side brings its own war chest of patents claims. Settlements tend to be more of a cease fire than a permanent end. They agree to stop suing each other.
Being non practicing means that a patent war can't interfere with your more important interests. Being clean slate means that whoever you sue can't return fire by going after the rest of your patent portfolio.
"Patent trolling" isn't black or white definitionally, but it has earned its bad name. It's an ugly game of dirty tricks.
Of course it could just be financial engineering, though I suspect that would look more like an asset backed loan.
All we ever see is “threat of litigation by troll” “company takes stand against troll”
But we have no clue how the negotiations went? We have no clue how many are agreed upon, we have no clue how many are tolerable small revenue splits or something else
All we are left with are extreme positions that imagine every patent or litigant is an extortion racket and thats just negligent
There is room for nuance by adults