This is a simple case of default settings. Not much has changed over the years. He who controls the operating system/browser controls the portal and hence the referral.
As well-known and popular as Google is as a portal, they still need to play the default settings game. Android and Chrome are Google's way of making sure google.tld is a default setting.
One could argue that in the majority of cases, those 1% of domains are not chosen by the user, but by he who controls th default settings.
The following is an oversimplification, but should give you an easy way to think about what IV is doing. It's oversimplified because IV is now in a position to pursue multiple patent strategies, including ones that make great PR: "Look, we're patenting the solution to malaria!" But let's focus on how they got started, their "bread and butter", how they actually make money.
The term "patent troll" came from an in-house lawyer for a large well-known IT company.
The idea is that small inventors or small companies sometimes with the help of NPE's or aggressive litigators would come after the large companies and ask them to "pay up".
Of course the reality is often that large companies are the only ones who are capable of practising the technology in these patents and actually producing products and services that people use. So to the large company with lots of cash, these threats are just trolling. The small guys, the NPE's and aggressive patent litigators trying to shake down the large companies don't produce anything. All they did was file receive a few (likely bogus) software patents. They are "patent trolls".
Now, obviously the definition has expanded, but now you know where it came from and the context.
Next an ex-MS CTO with considerable personal wealth has become so bothered by this (or intrigued, take your pick) that he decides instead fo trying to fix the system and solve this problem of trolling, he will stick himself into the space that the NPE's and the aggressive patent litigators occupy. He will be a middleman. The new middleman. One middleman to rule them all. And he will take his cut. They'll be no need to produce products. Of course, there's one problem with this idea. He does not have control of 100's or 1000's of patents.
Now, what nik seems to be missing is that no business is going to donate money or patents to an aspiring mega troll.
Large companies don't want to pay unless they have to; if there's no litigation threat then there's no reason to pay. Small inventors, universities, NPE's, etc. OTOH want payment; they are not going to donate their patents into a trolling pool without cash up front or some guarantee of payment. And as for VC, at the time, they had better things to invest in, and still do. One could argue they like the small guy with a great story and huge potential, not some tax collector on innovation that is by and large just a group of patent lawyers with no intention of producing anything.
_Our mega troll had to use his own money to get this idea off the ground._ He had to create a threat, a pool of patents that would otherwise be worthless on their own, by spending _his own money._ If this is such a savvy business idea then why did he have to take on the risk personally? And why isn't every wealthy geek jumping on the bandwagon and launching an IV clone? Why bother making products? Why not just be a middleman that produces nothing? I'll leave those questions for the reader. Here's a hint: Because no one, other than the trolls themselves, wanted to exacerbate an already vexing problem.
Of course, to the troll, the system is not broken. To the troll bogus software patents are currency. The only problem the troll has is getting people to pay for his worthless patents; our mega troll does this only by aggregating them into an impenetrable thicket (much larger and broader than any previsouly existing NPE) of remote potential infringement suits and hiding behind ephemeral shell corporations. It's worthless currency that would otherwise be ignored by anyone producing products and offering services (as his former employer routinely did), unless you threaten to sue them.
As with the software bug analogy in an above comment, what the IV founder did was to become part of the problem, inserting himself into the chain of contributors, in order to profit from it.
I would suggest the methodology make use of not only the assignments data from the patent offices but also the data from as many state company registries as possible. It's not easy because there is no harmonization of this type of data among all US states and some (Delaware, Nevada, etc.) deliberately make it easy for companies to hide information about who owns them.
There's one more idea I had. You could also search trademark data under the assumption that short-lived shell companies do not register trademarks for their company name, unlike most legitimate businesses that offer products and services to society.
It's the difference between someone who has a lot of exposure to software bugs deciding 1. this is something we need to work to fix versus 2. this is a potential way to make money as long as it stays broken if we take a role as middlemen in the problem.
I'll detail the analogy more in another comment below.
As well-known and popular as Google is as a portal, they still need to play the default settings game. Android and Chrome are Google's way of making sure google.tld is a default setting.
One could argue that in the majority of cases, those 1% of domains are not chosen by the user, but by he who controls th default settings.