I think naming and shaming is a good tactic. People should not be signing contracts with clauses like that in the first place, and if there is potential for future shame, maybe it'll make them think a bit more about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...
---SNIP---
The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users’ preferences as they browsed the Web.
“That’s a patent,” a lawyer said, scribbling notes.
Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.
“That’s a patent,” the lawyer said.
Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.
“That’s another one,” the lawyer said.
"Even if we knew it wouldn’t get approved, we would file the application anyway,” the former Apple lawyer said in an interview. “If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea.”
The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. “I would like to decline to participate,” he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn’t believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.
If you're going to name-and-shame anyone involved in filing a patent (and I'm still doubtful about what this would achieve, given all they're doing is maximising a flawed system), the lawyers would make more sense (you can find out who they are by examining the filings on the USPTO PAIR database), or the upper management who determines patent policy.
Sadly, that's not the case: "Whenever all of the inventors refuse to execute an application for patent, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, a person to whom an inventor has assigned or agreed in writing to assign the invention, or who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter justifying such action, may make application for patent on behalf of and as agent for all the inventors." 37 CFR 1.47(b).
