Oh, I can't wait to see how lobbyists and lawyers allow to dismantle the patent system ;-) I'd like to give some constructive critic, however. So, I propose the opposite approach. Let's make the whole system even more complex and expensive for patent holders.
Maybe every patent application should be provided with a formal proof of how much specific innovation has cost. Declared cost would be verified and accepted by patent office. Consequently, the upper bound of possible damages awarded during a litigation should be set to that amount of money.
Such approach should repel patent trolls twofold. First, since costs of innovation in the software industry tend to revolve around 0, litigations would not be profitable. Second, more troublesome patent application process would decrease the number of issued patents and, statistically, increase their quality, making patents less accessible and useful for patent trolls.
I am a geek and I like Unity. It's like emacs of the world of UI's. The first modern GUI you don't need to use a mouse to work with it. I find it very productive.
You can launch or switch to any of the first 10 applications on the launcher, resize/maximize/minimize a window, tile multiple windows, switch workspaces, or bring up the dash with a single keybinding for each. The only one of those I remember being able to do in GNOME 2 was switch workspaces.
You guys in US do it all the wrong way. I remember how examiners fought cheating when I was a student at Warsaw University, Poland (1990 - 1995). They simply allowed cheating. So, at the beginning of every exam an examiner announced something like: "Ladies and gentlemen. You are allowed to cheat. You can browse your books and notes,
no questions asked. But I must warn you that exam tasks are designed such a way, that they require thinking - and thinking is not compatible with cheating, because thinking is fast and cheating is quite slow. So, you are allowed to cheat, but if you will it is very likely that you will not complete minimum number of tasks required to pass the exam.
I wish you good luck."
Maybe every patent application should be provided with a formal proof of how much specific innovation has cost. Declared cost would be verified and accepted by patent office. Consequently, the upper bound of possible damages awarded during a litigation should be set to that amount of money.
Such approach should repel patent trolls twofold. First, since costs of innovation in the software industry tend to revolve around 0, litigations would not be profitable. Second, more troublesome patent application process would decrease the number of issued patents and, statistically, increase their quality, making patents less accessible and useful for patent trolls.