Self-contradiction?

Big tech corporations are worried about their market share (well, at least that's the most important and obvious reason), thus litigation started as a mean to protect market. Patent has became businesses' essential weapon and defense to weed out competition.

Recently, thanks to the emerging patent trolls in the US, they also started the game in the European territory. Since there are so many countries reside, it is indeed so much harder for a healthy united patenting system to enforce the patent justice.

Though tech companies like Apple and Samsung still have several litigation processes pending, they along with other companies agree on the fact that patent troll (aka Patent Assertion Entities, PAEs) problems are yet another emerging problem in Europe, thus hoping for the Unified Patent Court system (UPC) to address the subject matter better which haven't been dealt with in the existing ruling. In the open letter to European policy-makers provided in the article Growing industry coalition urges the EU (again) not to turn Europe into a patent trolls' paradise, one can clearly see the intention of preventing patent trolls from being able to exploit the European patenting system.

With the current ruling, the letter pointed out that PAE may be able to cause an injunction with a patent that was later found invalid. This introduces loopholes in the system that can be easily exploited, gives PAEs more opportunities to play with the patent justice system.

It is arguably true that the completeness of a healthy patent system will eliminate the cost everybody has to pay if it had a place for patent trolls. However, this statement made in the letter itches me a little: "This result unduly reduces competition, can increase the cost of products in the market and reduce product choices, all negatively impacting consumers". For all fairness, these corporations have been exercising "reducing competition", "increasing the cost of production", "reducing product choices", and most importantly "negatively impacting consumers". Imagine billions of dollars were invested in the litigation process for various big tech companies. Legal fees that could've been invested in R&D but didn't, with reducing product selection on the market due to injunction (which we do not really know if a product is really infringing a "valid" patent). It seems like this letter is self-contradicting except for the fact that I agree for patent holding entities that are not exercising production should not even be allowed to play the game.