Username or EmailPassword
"Patents should be non-transferable" - I don't agree here. Given all other proposals, e.g. short ttl, need for productizing etc., there's no harm in being able to transfer a patent, since that would hinder an inventor that only invents for the sake of it, not produces (yes, he could licence the patent etc., but that would be a hassle; speaking of licences: I think the European compulsory fair licences are good, and should be included in the US system).
No need imho for a "backup" inventor either, if the inventor dies, the patent passes to whoever is the heir. And as for employers of companies: a legal entity may hold a patent (as suggested by other commenters), so that includes both humans and companies (besides, most inventions aren't done 19th century style "weird scientist" Tesla kind of way, but in teams).
"In case of emergency, the state should be able to either temporarily or permanently nullify certain patents." - I don't agree here either. The state should be able to force licencing, even against a 0 fee, and if possible reemburse the patent holder. But nullify an otherwise valid patent is imho equal to theft.
"Patent applications must be accompanied by a working prototype" - I agree, to an extent. This is largely to prevent patenting of mere ideas. If one has thought about a certain method to do something, it must be tested whether even possible (impossible stuff should not be abel to be patented, akin to perpetuum mobiles), and in order to do that, a prototype is needed. The extent I'm talking about is that I'm not sure it's possible by a patent office, without enlisting an army of technicians and scientists, to verify whether a prototype actually implements the patent.