There are no bugs, there is just the contract, and the intent, and the difference between the two.
My point is, the institution of law needs to be trusted, yet patent-trolling exists because the institution has failed to apply fair judgment and common sense such that ridiculous legal structures have prevailed.
I disagree. While the use of the word 'bug' is often stretched (i.e. feature requests being made in the issue tracker), the contracts in this case are not purely the product of a writer - they are also a contract, as in a written, explicit agreement. Calling an unintended consequence a bug may be true from the perceptive of the writer, but not necessarily from the perspective of the second-party, who may have agreed to the written contract, but not the "intent". Hence a document with two parties does not have objective bugs in that sense, unless both parties agree, which is not the case in disputes requiring a judge.
But my point was the patent trolling exists because the law is unfavourable. Not because there is a system of mediation in place. If the patent system should be abolished or not doesn't really relate to how inconsistencies in contracts are handled, as far as I can see?
My point is, the institution of law needs to be trusted, yet patent-trolling exists because the institution has failed to apply fair judgment and common sense such that ridiculous legal structures have prevailed.