Maybe U.S. can have another pool of jury build with candidates who qualified to be a jury and work as R&D in I.T. software/hardware vendors.
In such case, to validate a patent, a "laugh test" is most likely to be enough.
At that point, it's not really a jury, it's a panel of experts.
The "laugh" test already exists in patent law. It's a requirement that patents are a novel, marketable and practical innovation that is non-obvious to an expert in the field.
I think perhaps the bit that several people are getting confused by, is that having a patent granted doesn't mean it passed that test. That test of a patent's validity is only via a patent lawsuit.
I could go a patent a "small device that holds a picture and/or witty phrase designed to be attached via magnets to consumer refrigeration devices" (a fridge magnet), but that doesn't mean I get $1 for every fridge magnet sold. To do that I have to bring a patent lawsuit, where experts in fridge magnetism would argue (and succeed) in persuading the court that my patent wasn't valid.
If you want to complain against these patents, you need to complain about ones that have been tested in court. Patents which haven't been tested in court might not be valid. Hence, all of the patents you're complaining about in this thread might not be valid patents.