I like the idea of showing financial plans. A patent should encourage innovation and nothing more. I've always thought that the inventors (or patent holders) should be entitled to all proceeds that their invention generates until they've been adequately compensated for the opportunity cost and capital they've risked to bring their idea to market. Capital costs are easy to measure, opportunity costs not so much. But that is captured in what the inventors plan to earn off their invention either through selling it or licensing it, so the patent office can figure out how long a patent would need to be valid in order for the inventors to be properly rewarded. Since a dollar value would be attached to it in that case, any purchase of the patent would probably change the time it takes for the inventors to be made whole.
In any case, 20 years of protection no matter who owns the patent is a terribly stupid idea.
> I've always thought that the inventors (or patent holders) should be entitled to all proceeds that their invention generates until they've been adequately compensated for the opportunity cost
that is worse than what we have now (damages were, until very recently, calculated on 25% of profit from the part of a product that violated a patent)
also, there are already stringent 'use it or lose it' provisions in most jurisdictions - they are easily avoided, and you only need a single state to become 'patent friendly' to screw it all up anyway
In any case, 20 years of protection no matter who owns the patent is a terribly stupid idea.