I like this idea. We've grown too attached to the notion of "intellectual property", thinking of ideas as things you can own. We should get back to the purpose of IP: subsidizing the creation of new information, which by nature belongs to no one but benefits everyone, with a limited monopoly on its reproduction. If you aren't using your monopoly, then no one is benefiting, and you shouldn't have it.
I keep thinking about the case where someone has a valid idea for an invention that's worth a patent, but doesn't have the funds to build such a thing.
Let's say I invent a new kind of power generation that requires construction of a large-scale power plant. I shouldn't have to wait until the power plant is built and operational before I get protection for the invention. I should be able to get a patent on the idea and sell the rights to implement it to someone who can.
That's a great concern, but I don't think we're talking about requiring an exemplar to patent so much as a "use it or lose it" system.
And "use" doesn't have to mean implement. In your case, you'd just tell the truth: "I've been making a good-faith effort to license this generator technology to power companies, but they keep turning me down because they're waiting for my patent to expire instead so they get it for free." If you can document that effort, there's no reason we couldn't consider that a valid use and sustain the patent— and so the power companies have no incentive not to license your technology, and so the generator gets built and everyone wins.
Remember also that the only case this comes up in is if a power company sues you to get your technology for free on the grounds that you aren't using it. If you offered to sell it to them first, that's a pretty open and shut case.
With respect, I think this is exactly the case people have legitimate worries about, but also the case that we must clearly refute. Why should this idea be protected? Does it benefit society? I think the answer is yes only if one person having the idea makes it get implemented significantly more quickly than it otherwise would have. But I doubt that is usually the case. It's far mor likely that either a) the idea isn't really very novel and would have been produced soon after anyway by someone else or b) someone having a patent on the idea makes those with the ability to execute on it (or the capital) do something else. Or both. Patents should only exist to benefit society, since they have the force of law. I think most of us struggle to find even single instances where that has happened.
