To make an analogy, C is hard to read for newcomers. But has anyone designed a simpler, better language for describing direct, low-level manipulation of memory? Is it even possible to describe such operations in a simpler way than in C?
That being said, any given patent isn't necessarily written well. Within the confines of the "patent programming language," one can write well or poorly. So I'm not claiming that individual patents can't be edited for clarity. Rather, I'm claiming that the fundamental way patents are written--which is admittedly intimidating--may not admit of much simplification.
To revisit the above analogy, one can write bad C. One can even write deliberately obfuscated C.
For example, take a Shazam-like song id algorithm.
Technical blog post explaining the technology: http://laplacian.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/how-shazam-works/
Patent covering such an algo(is it the same? I can't even tell!): http://www.google.com/patents/US6941275?dq=.+6,941,275
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
The word patent even means 'in the open'. When was the last time someone linked to a software patent to share knowledge or enlightenment?
I mean, this is actually a bad patent to pick on, because in the scheme of things, it's actually really clear. Just read the claims.
If you want to look at what an algorithmic patent looks like, take a look at http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf this is a Patent cited by the Shazam patent as an example of a music matching algorithm. The bulk of the patent is basically a mix of block diagrams, pseudo-code, and background into the art. It's certainly not phrased like normal papers, but it's hardly 'mired'. It gets trickier when you get to the claims (which is actually the only parts that are binding), but if you read and understood the preferred embodiment (which I believe any reasonable literate and patient programmer can), it's nowhere as bad, as long as you understand that claims are nearly always structured from broadest to narrowest, with successive claims typically carving out specific 'implementations' of prior, broader claims.
I suspect the issue here may be the same as the one that besets people who want to - for example - include a nice human readable version of a EULA alongside the legal version.
It introduces the opportunity for conflicts between the two version. Which is the actual legally binding version?
Your nice understandable synopsis should be used by the PR department for the press release that goes out explaining the newly awarded patent (if the PR department does such things).
The firms that specialize in patent applications are paid to increase the chance that a patent is granted, so its natural that clear and understandable language is the first to go.
Is this like software engineers taking someone's simple algorithmic concept and turning it into 'incomprehensible computerese babble'?