A "good" patent is one which conforms to the N.U.N. test, where
N = Novelty, i.e. it's a new idea or invention.
U = Utility, i.e. it has commercial use.
N = Non-obvious, i.e. it involves innovation and not something quite obvious to the industry.
"Bogus" patents are those that fail in one or more of the above areas. In his paper on "Injunctions, Hold Up & Patent Royalties", Carl Shapiro uses the term "questionable patents" to describe this. He further states
[These questionable patents were] likely to be invalid or contain overly broad claims. The National Academies of Science (2004) expressed concern that many patents are issued for inventions that should in fact be considered “obvious”...
Bogus patents fail in either novelty (too broad claims that are not inventive) or non-obviousness (inventive, but obvious). There are examples of many patents like this. Take a look at the patent "Method for distributing non real-
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTING RESOLUTION OF DISPLAY DEVICE IN MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES
A ridiculously simple patent. The "invention" involves lowering the display resolution when the battery level on the device is low.
These are examples of how some patents are granted without good analysis of if the claims are obvious or known industry-wide.