No, that's the exact opposite of my point. By patenting something, you stick in it the database of "public knowledge" so that it could be discovered 50 years later if need be. That means it wouldn't be necessary for Corning to sit on it for 50 years. Sitting on things for 50 years and making the current status of the filer irrelevant (dead, disincorporated, whatever) is one of the purposes of the patent system.
The "limited monopoly" is part of a social contract and understanding the whole contract is important.
However, if they successfully commercialize sans patents - it'll be a good case against patents being needed to monetize. Finding markets, production advantages and expertise is still a bigger part of the equation than King George fencing off your market.
The "limited monopoly" is part of a social contract and understanding the whole contract is important.