And should they really make laws affecting software developers, patent owners, and software users without talking to some people from these three groups?
Sure, why not? As long as they have a solid understanding of the matters the law concerns, they definitely don't need to talk to stakeholders. Because, again, those stakeholders have a stake in the matter and have a huge incentive to either lie or portray half truths, and anything they say is thus suspect to the point that it is better not to hear what they have to say.
Or do you expect them to also have some software developers on staff (who happen to understand the patent aspects) just in case this topic comes up in their term?
False dichotomy. There is somewhere between 'talk to the guys the law specifically concerns' and 'hire everybody to cover all possible knowledge in the world'. For instance: Hire some external consultants.
Politicians should be seeking out parties that can inform them on subjects they do not have a proper grasp on. Tell me, which non-malicious politician in his right mind would seek information on a matter from any party who has anything to gain from that matter being legislated one way or another?
"I'm going to have to vote on a law to forbid vacuum cleaners, of which I know nothing. I know, let me talk to the people at Vacuums & Stuff Inc. (providing you suckage since 1923!) and then ask The Society For All Things Broomlike after that."
I mean, it's not as if in any field the only knowledgeable people are people who stand to gain from certain legislation in that field. For something as important as lawmaking, spending some extra cash on independent consultants or, again, research into the matter at hand to greatly reduce corruption seems warranted to me.
Also it seems like a much better solution than what you propose. Frankly, your 'solution' (keep pretty much everything the same) is shit. And proven so.