Perhaps there should be a difference between a patent under control of the inventor, and the patent under control of a purchaser. For example, if I patent something, maybe I get 20 years protection. However, if I sell the rights, perhaps the buyer only gets a maximum of 10 years, or less if more than 10 years have passed since the patent was issued. Perhaps if it is sold again, the patent goes to 5 years.
It seems to me that protecting inventors is good. But the market for patents should benefit the inventor most, and subsequent purchasers less.
I do hear you; but that's a bit of gray area for me. Being the little guy myself, sounds sweat. But: did you read the Westinghouse bio blurb? Anyway, this is only addressing trolls, and beyond that it smells a bit like addressing structural issues in society via a tangent.
(also: I have no problem at all with Google patenting page-rank, for example.)
I think a fine goal is to minimize frivolous litigation. And one key requirement there is that bogus patents are minimized. Us geeks on the internets are actually in a position to provide both (a) a positive service to society and (b) address the bogus-patent-mill aka USPTO's apparent difficulty in establishing prior art and recognizing the patently obvious.
We need something along the line of a wiki + hn.forum (tech-know quality of members) + APIs. The API is for USPTO and their examiners :)
One issue is confidentiality. If someone can crack the problem of (a) maintaing the confidential subject matter and (b) providing a tool for a USPTO examiner to quickly scan the collective knowledge base, then concerned Geeks can step in and make sure USPTO stops issuing stupid patents.
(Low tech options: taking the Einstein way and instead of interning at GoldmanSachs, the bright young thing takes a tour of duty at dear USGov and does some robust patent examining ..  or tie it to Federal student loan packages.)