The problem with allowing this is that it becomes (as it has) de facto procedure to never read patents because you might infringe. So, this fails to uphold the idea that patents should teach society how to do a thing.
I'm not proposing that the patent should teach society, but the patent holder, as a condition of maintaining the patent. In any profession, there are trade journals or conferences that you have to pay attention to if you want to remain competitive. If your invention isn't interesting enough to get you into these venues as a contributor, then it should be, by definition, not novel enough to justify patent protection. If you do get in, there are enough eyes on the patent to identify prior art and challenge the patent before it has a chance to do much damage.
I'm not proposing that the patent should teach society, but the patent holder, as a condition of maintaining the patent. In any profession, there are trade journals or conferences that you have to pay attention to if you want to remain competitive. If your invention isn't interesting enough to get you into these venues as a contributor, then it should be, by definition, not novel enough to justify patent protection. If you do get in, there are enough eyes on the patent to identify prior art and challenge the patent before it has a chance to do much damage.