The post you invited me to offer my opinion on was not restricted to Apple/Samsung nor were the links. It was a response to ErictheHalfBee who also wasn't commenting specifically on Apple/Samsung but instead (software?) patents in general.
1) Not possible. 'Business methods' is too broad. I can see definitions stretching all the way from the specific process by which Corning makes fiberglass or a specific process for making drugs, to the way a company answers a telephone or compensates an employee. I really don't understand what the phrase means. If you mean the latter variety, yes. But could you be more specific? And where would you draw the line for what is an un-patentable business method?
If you don't know what a business method patent refers to the definition if fairly easy to find. Just search "what is a business method patent" for the details. The short version is it's relatively new and once-upon-a-time unpatentable category and in general refers to using software to address a business problem. Technically it applies to the subject of finance but due to weasel-wording has been broadly interpreted as anything that might pertain to business. Often the only "innovation" in one is that a computer is used to solve it.
Many countries, including our neighbor to the North, consider it non-patentable subject matter. Here in the US it appears that SCOTUS may be reining business method patents in too after muddying the waters a few years ago with Bilski. Their stand is not yet entirely clear tho and may not be until another couple of cases are heard by them besides Alice v. CLS. So yes it's entirely possible that "software patents" may be largely disallowed within the next few years.
3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.
The reason? The argument goes that such a system would discriminate against the poor, since, all else equal (and given that all outcome is probabilistic), the poor will be less motivated to bring suits. Indeed, the 'hire a lawyer on a contingency fee' system in the US is seen as a further step towards tilting the playing field in favor of the less powerful.
(Other countries, such as the UK, do have a 'loser pays' system, and they don't allow lawyers on contingency)
Example: A pager sychronization patent from 15 years ago should not be used to gain an injunction on a cloud service introduced today. It was a use not anticipated by the original inventor and thus honestly not originally intended for protection. Vague or creative wording should NOT be allowed to make a patent so broad as to cover innovations the patent's inventor never considered.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/20/14 at 3:53pm