The patent issued in 1996 and wasn't revisited since then (because never asserted in litigation). The USPTO is a lot different now, a quarter-century later.
Back then you couldn't early challenge a patent and prevent it from being issued, and once it was issued you couldn't challenge it without violating it and entering trial. Now you can do both.
Early challenging sounds helpful, but that's also outsourcing the work and it could put more coders at risk of treble damages further down the line from some patent they glanced at and forgot about.
Isn't there also a recourse process by which you can get a patent invalidated? You can't expect USPTO to hire an expert in every single possible field.
I think that's usually resolved in court. By which I mean, I don't think there's process beyond choosing to fight any suit brought against you and hoping you win in court.
> I don't think there's process beyond choosing to fight any suit brought against you and hoping you win in court.
Not true. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination It's even easier today than a decade ago, though the Wikipedia article doesn't explain that aspect very well. (I wouldn't be able to explain it, either. I think it has to do with reduced ability for a patent owner to drag out review, including dragging it into court.) Probably not nearly easy enough, though.
Please be more specific or link something that explains how they've improved.