From my understanding (which may be limited), treble damages only apply when someone willingly infringes on a patent. So this would be a scenario where someone identifies a patent that relates to what they're building, but they build it anyway. This is very different from identifying existing patents specifically to ensure one does not infringe. In this second scenario someone identifies a patent that relates to what they're building, so they modify what they're building as not to infringe. In some (extreme) cases, this might mean the project should be abandoned. In other (not so extreme) cases, this might mean you need to change one (or more) aspect(s) of the project. In any event, and aside from the legal aspects, I think it's a good exercise for anyone building something. You might avoid future legal issues, you might become more aware of where technology is going (vice a perspective built on currently released products), and it might help you innovate further. Brain food.

I believe that patent trolls "win" when everyone is too scared to stand up for what they believe in. Plain and simple, if people don't take a stand, then things won't change. And I don't necessarily mean just taking a stand in court, I'm talking more about how we (as developers and innovators) react to the issue. I agree that leaving the US will probably lower your chances of becoming a patent troll victim, but everything is relative. Maybe you're building something truly novel and innovative and you want to protect it? Would this outweigh the risk of becoming a patent troll victim? I guess it depends on what (and where) you're building.