Quoting from the article:
Patents are meant to foster innovation by protecting the inventor and then upon expiry providing a library of information for others to build on. To this end, going forward, if a patent doesn’t actually tell you enough information to understand and build the invention, it shouldn’t be valid.
Given that a software patent is...well, software, why not require that actual working code be submitted as part of the patent application/grant? The code is held in escrow/confidence by the patent office for the term of the patent, and is released to the public domain when it expires.
There's probably some issue there with copyright of the code that might complicate the public domain part, but at the very least you could clean-room reimplement it. An alternative might be that you are required to renounce/void copyright on the code in order to obtain a patent - the short term monopoly of the basic idea comes at the cost of no long/indefinite-term copyright on the specific implementation.
That opens up all sorts of new possibilities, like requiring/permitting the patent claims to be machine-readable, in the sense of a conformance test-suite. That both ensures that the provided implementation is a true instance of the patented invention, and gives the holder/patent office/court an easy way to check for violation.