The biggest issues arise when old patents, particularly old and overly broad ones, are used to assert claims against recent technologies or creations. Take a look at some of the patents that MS is using to bully Android licensees. Some date to the beginning of the '90's, while others (still old) have nothing at all to do with current uses. That's most of the reason they're trying to hide what the claims are until they get NDA's prior to negotiating the payment.
Ideas and innovation would flourish more if the patent system required a more narrow assertion so that current "inventions" aren't claimed to be copies of something that the holder of a 20-year old patent would never have considered to begin with.
How exactly do you know what the patent holder was thinking about as far as future implementations? Sometimes you have to wait on the hardware & technology to catch up to an idea. You may also have to wait for the component parts to be economically viable. You would need a crystal ball to figure out intent. I'm sure Apple & other companies have products in concept mode that are built & are not yet economically viable. The idea that there is some kind of narrow limited thinking going on when something unique is developed is well, narrow thinking. I suppose these patent holders should not file patents unless they are very specific? How does that make sense & how do you implement that total mess of a situation. What does narrower mean?