This is called "begging the question": assuming what is in dispute and needs proving.
"Patented technology" assumes that the "invention" was indeed worthy of a patent. If you want to take some example patents whose claims were thrown out in IPR, I'll be happy to debate them with you.
> Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims since it provides another opportunity to throw out claims, some of which may have stood in a full trial.
Again, you are begging the question. I've actually watched a mock jury debate patent eligibility. Their assumption is that the PTO wouldn't have granted the patent if it weren't valid. I actually heard a member say about a piece of invalidating prior art (paraphrasing), "That's so obscure! It's not fair to expect the PTO to know about that!"
> The PTO reviewers are hardly more knowledgeable about technical fields than juries.
You can't be serious. Technical knowledge is not expected from a jury. PTO examiners are accustomed to doing this.
> Is this not depriving people of their right to a jury?
Not an unconditional right. A jury trial costs anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 a day. Demand for a jury trial by an NPE is basically extortion.
> Somehow 64% of reviews end up with changes, is this not a sign that the PTO has been all to regularly changing its mind about valid patents?
For the third time, "begging the question." Find some patents that were modified and we'll talk about them.
> Google has settled many patent cases over the years, surely some of them were valid patents.
Pretty weak reasoning. Settling is not an admission of guilt.
> I do agree many software patents are not applicable and are often spam, but there are real costs to decreasing patent rights outside of software.
At last you've hit on something reasonable: take software out of the patent field entirely, and we can make some good law.