I think you should highlight point 4 as the most important, particularly for the US, where patents exist to 'promote useful progress' where instead congress has created a quagmire-like unconstitutional hindrance to entrepreneurship. Non-practising parties should not be able to block someone bringing to market a product which would be covered by a patent held by the non-practising parties.
Readability of patent texts and a swathe of existing patents is a big problem - it requires the patent examiner and the judge deciding on these cases to have a search strategy and a mental process to tie together the corpus into something intelligible. To my mind, that's one of the great challenges for machine intelligence, and the sooner we can dedicate some silicon zetaflops to it, the better. However, when we do, we will need to specify the disclosure of the invention in some machine-readable language to simplify the tests for novelty. In that setting, you can clearly see that there is no 'machine or transformation' where an algorithm alone is claimed.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds