Another idea from Harvard: Proposed bureaucracy for patentees

In passing note the law review by Kurt M. Saunders, Patent Nonuse and the Role of Public Interest as a Deterrent to Technology Suppression, 15 Harv. J. Law & Tec 389 (2002), which states

First, all patentees should file, as a matter of public record, an annual statement with the USPTO that simply indicates whether their patents are being used and, if not, the reasons that the patents are not being used or licensed to others for
use.

Second, in antitrust enforcement actions, evidence of patent
suppression should be weighed more heavily when it is part of other predatory conduct, particularly where a monopolist has pursued a plan of acquiring and then shelving competing technology within its field, [LBE note: watch out Novell, you had better not shelve that technology acquired by JGR in the Commerce One bankruptcy auction!] or where there is concerted anticompetitive activity that also involves patents.

Finally, compulsory patent licensing should be applied when it is proved that the patentee has market power in the relevant market, and that the patent is either essential to effective competition or innovation within that market or that it is in the public interest that the patent be used or licensed.