I think the process of accepting patents is broken, at least with software. If a reasonable practitioner could read some head-line and come up with a few solutions, there is not anything worth protecting. Ideas themselves should not be patentable in software.

On other hand I do think there is still need to protect innovation in more physical things. Like new manufacturing processes or material innovations like using novel chemistry.

This may technically be true, but especially the patents that get exploited by trolls are usually very vague. And the system gives too much incentive to write patents as broadly as possible.

To be fair, some of the patents that listed in another comment here as part of the lawsuit are quite precise in their claims. Their claims cover the actual algorithms for integrating another loudspeaker into a secure WLAN and for ensuring exact playback. That's the kind of detail level that I would expect from a patent. As a result, if you solve the same problem using a sufficiently different set of steps, you're fine.

There's a difference between the spirit in which a law or regulation is written and how it is applied in practice over time. In case of patents, this gap has become quite large. I think that this is why so many here want see changes.