I'm not sure the bureaucracy of this would be any better than the current (flawed) patent system... In fact, I'd venture it would be much, much worse.
At least in the current system you're protected, and potentially rewarded - even if everyone thinks it's a bad idea (which is often the case for break-through innovations).
The current system is not well tuned to current technology. If you patent the steam regulator, the idea was that you would sell then far and wide... In the industry now it's used to lock up a technology for exclusive use.
Maybe a patent should coffer the rights to an invention - and the patent is also opened up for auction by the govt to "n" organisations (where n is somehow determined to maximise profit), with the profits going to the patent holder.
I believe JesseAldridge above was referring instead to government funding R&D and then simply giving away the technology the way the daguerreotype photographic process was given away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype
Instead of Daguerre obtaining a French patent, the French government provided a pension for him. In Britain, Miles Berry, acting on Daguerre's behalf, obtained a patent for the daguerreotype process on 14 August 1839. Almost simultaneously, on 19 August 1839, the French government announced the invention as a gift "Free to the World".
Some expert could decide which projects are worth pursuing and fund the research and development.
Private companies could then take those inventions and build businesses around them.
There could be a large cash prize if the invention ends up being especially valuable.