Here's the thing: this guy probably didn't care all that much about software patents before his company was sued and it became a personal issue for him. The public at large is unlikely to be moved by something as abstract and (ostensibly) abstruse as software patents unless a clear case can be made about what's really at stake. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that the big companies can afford to license and defend if need be, so the stifling effects of software patents are even harder to see. How can we measure what might have been?