Username or EmailPassword
I mostly like your suggestions with one big exception:
* Patents will no longer be assumed to be valid by courts.
WTF?! That's plain stupid. If you pay big bucks to file a patent application or whatever and it's granted after long examination, of course it should be assumed valid by courts.
If the patent isn't assumed to be valid, how should the aggressor argue that no prior art exists? Arguing something doesn't exist is basically impossible.
Perhaps it would be better to allow the other party to show that the aggressor's patent is invalid (as they only have to show an example of prior art). Edited 2012-07-06 12:55 UTC