I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of compiler-relate

I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of compiler-related papers from, say, IBM, wouldn't have been published and kept secret if IBM couldn't file patents before publishing papers. So "programmers don't read patents" does not prove "zero public benefits", because I think it is more like "programmers do read materials which wouldn't have been published if they couldn't be patented".