A patent exists for a broad system of interacting large, and independently complex, elements. However, at least one of the complex elements is described/claimed in the patent in a very cursory and general way. I would not be able to build and use the system as described in the patent. the system is too large and complex. In fact, I think that it would require a large team of persons with expertise in various areas to actually build and use the system (imagine the GPS satellite SYSTEM that required sattelite engineers for satellite elements, communications engineers for their devices, rocket scientists to further make the complex rockets work, etc.)
The system is claimed at an abstract level such as "a system comprised of [things] ... and a ground control station, where said ground station is comprised of an antenna, a computer, a database, telephones ... etc."
Question: Can I improve, or better or more thoroughly define (reduce to practice), a "ground station" with better specification and claimed elements such that my improvements (or better reduction to practice) precludes the other patentee from building and using his ground station without, in fact, infringing on my patent? This assumes he would actually NEED my claimed element improvements for his "system" to work.
One outcome, I would hope, would be that the other patentee is essentially forced to work with me and me with him to respectively build and "use" our respective inventions.
Thank you for any answers. I am still wrestling with this. [Could science fiction author Arthur C. Clark have patented his big system ideas in his book Profiles of the Future without more detailed specification/claims?]