While the current system is not perfect, what you propose would be much much worse.
How do you propose making patents more difficult to get? Make it more expensive? Require a working prototype before a patent will be granted? Both of these options would make it much harder for the little guy to get a patent, but just a slight inconvenience for the deep pocketed big company. More rigorous examination? How do you accomplish this without increasing the fees (that hurt the little guy the most)? Right now, the USPTO is self-funded by the fees it collects. Hiring more examiners and making examination longer would require higher fees or pulling in money from the federal budget (but there's no way congress would ever pull money away from patents, right?....).
Making patents exclusive to people and non-transferable means that the only way you can profit from your great idea is if you actually build and sell it, or you have the stomach (and resources) to sue the big company that decides your license fees are too high. As for not allowing companies to hold patents, the result would be anything developed by a small company could be stollen, without consequences, by another company with more resources or better marketing. A lot of innovation comes from companies and universities, who can profit from barring competitors from copying the idea or licensing/selling the patent, generating money that funds more research, yielding more innovation. The competitors, being barred from your technology, are forced to find another way, a better way, yielding more innovation. Your system "would totally fuck up our current model" but not for the better. Without those methods of profiting from innovation, progress would slow down.
"But wait," you say, "the small company's engineer would hold the patent, and they could license it to the small company." This means that the company's R&D efforts would result in having to pay license fees to employees you are already paying to invent stuff. No company is going to commit to a product line they develop this way without an air tight exclusive license with a clause requiring defense against infringement, so either the tech doesn't ever see the light of day, or the patent is licensed exclusively to that single company, who defends their product by funding patent litigation on behalf of the individual who "owns" the patent. Which is better than the current system... how?
The U.S. patent system is far from perfect, but it could be a lot worse. You seem to think that patents allow the big guy to fuck over the people. In reality, patents are one of the few places where the little guy can fuck over the juggernaut. Patent litigation is insanely expensive, one of the most costly ways to sue or get sued. But that doesn't mean the big guy can steal with impunity because you can't afford to enforce your patent. You can sell your patent to someone with deeper pockets (like their competitor), or work with a litigation team on contingency.
My favorite example of patents allowing the little guy to win is the story of i4i. i4i is a software company in Canada who makes tools for working with XML. Years ago, when i4i was just a handful of people, Microsoft teamed up with them, using their software to give Word functionality that was being sought after by the U.S. government (i.e. a huge payday). Coincidentally, the year after, Microsoft stopped working with i4i while simultaneously releasing a version of Word with i4i's tech baked in. i4i had a patent, and sued. Microsoft, with seemingly infinite resources at their disposal, failed in every attempt to invalidate the patent with the USPTO, and lost in court, and in every appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. i4i was even able to get an injunction prohibiting Microsoft from selling Word for a while. Ultimately, Microsoft had to pay $300 million in damages to a company several orders of magnitude smaller. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...