Username or EmailPassword
Regarding the weakness you point out, that seems to be a direct consequence of assuming that a human being must own the rights to a patent, not an organisation.
But while I know treating corporations as people isn't approved of, this is one place where it does make sense. If a patent is created by a team being payed to do so by their employer, it's not unreasonable that the employer be the owner of the work they produce. You won't achieve your goal of encouraging innovation if the people paying for it are afraid that the work will simply walk out the door once done.
I believe the simple solution to this problem is either a patent is filed as personal or as contract labor. In the case of a personal patent, then the authors scheme would stand. In the case of a contract labor patent then the patent would be filed as belong to a corporation. In this case, the patent would remain valid for the term and the only provided mechanism for transferal would be in the event that the owning corp. was purchased in its entirety.
The approach that immediately leapt to my mind for working around this issue is to alter the clauses covering restraint of trade and inventions in the employment contracts.
Many currently state that any products or inventions created under the employ of the company become property of said company, but this would become invalid under the proposed system.
It's also not uncommon for companies (in my country at least) to have a clause preventing you from working for a direct competitor for a certain time period after leaving. If sections such as these were amended, then the result could be something like:
Any products or inventions developed under employ of the company must be licensed exclusively to the company for $timeframe. On discontinuation of employment, all products or inventions developed under employment of the company must be licensed exclusively to the company for a period of $timeframe2 or until the expiration of the patent. Whichever is shorter.