The first few lines of the article speak to the closest snake to kill for patent legislation: You don't have to patent an invention, just an idea. This goes above and beyond the typical patent trolling of, "Well we bought the patent for x from whomever built it first, even though that technology is ubiquitous..." to "Let's see what general concepts are so obvious that no one has bothered to patent them."
My brother was starting a real estate app company and was sued for breaching the patent that allowed one to "find an address using a mobile device." The patent was filed in 1989, with no technology behind it whatsoever, just someone saying, "You know, I bet in the future someone will..."
You could patent "a car that flies in the air without touching the ground" today without having any idea how to build it (except I'm sure that's been patented). That should be step one for legislators to kill.
A patent is technically also required to teach to a person skilled in the prior art on how to build the invention.
Here is an excerpt from [1]: "Second, if the inventor did possess a best mode, it must be determined whether the written description disclosed the best mode such that a person skilled in the art could practice it."
I have heard that the recent changes to the US patent laws have weakened this [2], though I have never read the details.
My brother was starting a real estate app company and was sued for breaching the patent that allowed one to "find an address using a mobile device." The patent was filed in 1989, with no technology behind it whatsoever, just someone saying, "You know, I bet in the future someone will..."
You could patent "a car that flies in the air without touching the ground" today without having any idea how to build it (except I'm sure that's been patented). That should be step one for legislators to kill.