Software patents can only be used defensively when you are claiming your source code implements a patient.
In that light, the owner (or even expiration) does not matter. You can claim to implement an expired patent as a defense of a patent lawsuit. You can claim to implement/steal somebody else's patent (but that is unwise at times). This principle is how RISC-V and J-Core have survived. They pointed to expired patents and saying, "we do that, not your thing." (They really did too)
Privately owned patent rights, without rights granted to other entities can only be used offensively. Anyone saying otherwise is wittingly or unwitting supporting the patent system and arguing company line.
Offense is defense. If your competitor has enough patents that they'll find something they can reasonably argue that you infringe on, it's useful to present the same threat to them.
Companies that are serious about only using patents for this purpose can contribute them to open licensing schemes.
(And in the case of specifications that want to be standards, full patent grants should absolutely be included. You want people to use their stuff, make it safe for them to do so)
It does, but unfortunately, that's how humans work. We use threats to make cooperation the best choice for all parties, because we can't trust that none of those parties is an asshole.
In that light, the owner (or even expiration) does not matter. You can claim to implement an expired patent as a defense of a patent lawsuit. You can claim to implement/steal somebody else's patent (but that is unwise at times). This principle is how RISC-V and J-Core have survived. They pointed to expired patents and saying, "we do that, not your thing." (They really did too)
Privately owned patent rights, without rights granted to other entities can only be used offensively. Anyone saying otherwise is wittingly or unwitting supporting the patent system and arguing company line.