I really like the concept developed in one of the comments (I can reuse it here, right ?) of evolutionary vs revolutionary. Further than the "previous art" rul

I really like the concept developed in one of the comments (I can reuse it here, right ?) of evolutionary vs revolutionary. Further than the "previous art" rule, that should be a criteria in accepting new patents : is it revolutionary ? Yes ? Congrats, as a reward, you can benefit of exclusive exploitation. Of course, all the problem is to distinguish both. I suppose one way would be this one : when you claim a patent, there is a six month freeze time when it's not made public. If after six month nobody has used or mentioned any similar idea (similar enough to make a patent violation claim), you can have the patent. This would encourage lot of technical writing that would produce lot of ideas in order to avoid patent locking, and real revolutionary ideas would be recognized as they are, instead of looking suspicious as all current patented ideas are.