1. A system, almost the same as it is now, but the one patenting has to prove the patent office that the thing he wants to patent cannot be easily reproduced el

1. A system, almost the same as it is now, but the one patenting has to prove the patent office that the thing he wants to patent cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere without specific prerequisites, like exactly the types of research that was done by the patent "client". This rule would protect patent for things like drugs, where it is very expensive to find and test formula, but easy to copy, but would make it impossible to patent things like rounded corners or trivial algorithms or methods, things that are used the most by patent trolls. 2. Let everyone make anything that is patented, doesn't matter who is holding the patent, but the one using the patents should be aware he is using it. Then, if he, who used the patent, makes no money from it's use, he is allowed to use it without any limits (for example personal use, experiments, etc). If the patent user starts to make profit out of the product, which uses the patent, then there would be a special patent evaluation group, that would evaluate the significance of the patented thing, and the evaluated significance, combined with the profit the project is making and the set fraction that the patent holder gets, will be issued as a non-debatable compensation. Also the patent would only start to cost from a certain amount of profit bar and the price would rise non-linearly as the profit improves, so that lower profit products have to pay less, so that the price would not impede the growth, but only promote innovation by paying for it. The weak link would be the evaluation group - how to ensure it is not corrupt and evaluates righteously? Strict rules for evaluation could be set, but that would require some work to set up. 3. Combine those two.