I appreciate their efforts, but I disagree with a couple of their points. First, their use of the term 'troll' automatically imbues the reader with a sense of the type of person from whom this effort attempts to protect innovators: people whose single business purpose is the collection and enforcement of patents. That's simply a small, yet quite vocal, subset of the majority of people who benefit from patent law, and who should be entitled to protect their inventions.
With that in mind, I completely agree with limiting the term of software patents. In fact, I agree with limiting the terms of patents, generally; not inventions are the same, and technological innovation across various sectors does not progress at the same rate. Pharmaceutical patents, for example, typically aren't enforced until FDA approval occurs (which is sometimes up to 15 years later, giving them only 5 years to recoup the often immense investment in the research leading to the drug!).
The second point is awful: why should someone with a bona fide claim in patent infringement have to pay when the court rules against their favor in something that's an arguable question of law? Claim construction is done by the court; that is, the judge is the one who decides what claims in a patent mean. If the judge's decision goes against what you reasonably believed to be a correct construction of the claims and the defendant then prevails on a motion to dismiss, but you appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reverses, but then the defendant appeals and it goes to the Supreme Court, which agrees with the original judge and by dint of their judgment creates new law? Shouldn't both parties have to pay their respective attorneys' fees here? Of course. Oh, you mean cases of vexatious or malicious litigation, which are effectively extortion? Call the bar association of the lawyers involved, and file an ethics complaint. Patent trolls can be kept in line with ethics complaints.
I disagree with 3, because it violates due process unless there are significant changes to the Patent Act. Keep in mind: there's a major difference between sufficiency of disclosure and actually practicing an invention. Patent law has never required an inventor to actually produce or manufacture their invention, because it understands that sometimes, this is impossible. In software cases, what happens if you've imagined a beautifully complex system that's novel and non-obvious, but the software, skills, time, etc. required to bring it to fruition preclude you from doing so for whatever reason? What if you instead wish to license the invention to someone who can produce or manufacture the software? This provision would perpetuate corporate oligopolies by entitling those with the resources to reap the benefits of patent protection. We cannot allow this to happen.
That brings me to independent inventions: I'm on the fence about this. Copyright law has something similar to this, but patent law doesn't, and I'm not really sure why. My only idea is that during the inventive process, you will always be looking to prior art, and a reasonably prudent person would likely discover the patented subject matter during this process. Of course, this doesn't address the concern with an 'ignorant inventor' independently inventing something patented. Here's the issue: issued patents are published, and the public is 'on notice' that this invention is no longer in the public domain. Of course, there are more than 7 million patents, of which maybe 2 million or so are active. While possible, it's just not the best use of someone's time to ensure that they're not infringing on someone else's invention. But it's also unfair to the inventor who took the steps to patent their invention if this 'independent inventor' is allowed to reap the benefits of something taken out of the public domain with notice given. I guess the problem we have is that notice isn't 'effective', and that falls onto the patent office: they need a better categorization system. This is a problem with the executive branch, rather than the legislative or judicial.
Finally, I just want to talk about the sixth point, that someone shouldn't be allowed to collect 'millions' for a 'tiny infringement.' To me, this discredited the entire post, because it unnecessarily muddies the water with regard to liability. Patent infringement does not lead to treble damages (which I guess they fear), but willful patent infringement does. When an inventor sends you a cease and desist letter and you continue to practice the invention knowing that you're infringing, then you're liable for enhanced damages. But, you have to continue practicing the invention in willful disregard to the patent--it's a jury question.
In short, the patent system IS in need of reform to take into account the mutability of technological advancement. However, let's not jump to conclusions and pollute the Patent Act with exceptions to a technology that appears on its face to be an exception; we need to find and eradicate the root cause of the perceived injustices.