Re: Surely all you need
Is documentary proof that the patent owner is actively taking steps to implement the designs outlined which could reasonably easily be established, you'd think.
Or perhaps then, a return to the original concept of patents, you had to actually present your working invention/innovation to have it patented?
The problem with that approach is that it also impacts genuine innovators who, for certain reasons (cost, limitations of current tech, etc) cannot, yet, implement their own innovation.
And the problem with calling anyone with an active imagination a "genuine innovator" is that it's simply protecting the "I thought of it first" mentality. Rather than protecting the person who also thinks of it (completely independently), but then puts time and money into actually building it.
Either you agree that someone can think ideas all day, invent nothing and profit from those who do, or you agree that those who invent get first shot at exploiting their invention.
If you genuinely have a great new idea, keep your mouth shut until you can afford to build it. Unless there are people who exist who can mind-read, if someone else comes up with the same idea independently and then puts the hard work in to create it - they deserve the credit that comes.
Of course then if so many people can come up with the same idea we step into 'non-obvious' territory, so perhaps what is needed is a separate class of patents called "idea-patents" or something like that - where people can register an idea with a central office.
Then if someone later innovates on an existing tech, the number of separate idea-patents that it crosses with are counted, if it is above a certain threshold (many people had the same 'idea') then it gets dismissed as too obvious.