Re: Hunting trolls? You're doing it wrong!
"Set a system/procedures in place to actually check validity of a claim, not just let the courts clean up the mess later.*"
The reason for this is that Congress allocates such a measely budget for them. Investigating patents requires people and costs time and money. How will the USPTO handle this on a literal shoestring budget?
"Here's a unique step: Only the inventor can hold a patent! Patents should be non-transferable, period! You want to use it, pay him/her/it for the right to use it."
Sometimes, the inventor is not in a position to market an idea. Put it this way. Hoover didn't actually invent a vacuum cleaner, but he bought the patent of a gentleman not in a position to market the idea. Selling a patent should be allowed, but it should ONLY be for the purposes of actually implementing the patent.
"And the death blow? No software/process patents! If copyright can cover it, it shouldn't be patented."
The thing is, software TECHNIQUES that explain things IN BROAD cannot be covered by copyright because one can use an alternate language or method to get around copyright. Patents are the only way to cover ALL instances. THAT BEING SAID, what's needed is an adjustment on the period of patents based on their pertinent industry. A 20-year patent in a slow-moving industry like heavy machinery or medicine makes sense, but for the fast-moving world of computers, a term of about 3-4 years makes more sense (think two generations of development in an industry--long enough to get some skin out of it, but not long enough to really abuse it). Other industries may benefit from an adjustment to their patent lengths as well.