Sure, they could throw $4B into a lobbying campaign against software patents. But there's no great reason to think it would be successful, and it probably wouldn't have any effect on previous patents. On the other hand, that would make a hell of a warchest for defending themselves in infringement suits...
But how would they convince stockholders? Spending $4 billion on a bid for patents where the ouctome is known versus a campaign that might work but goes against the system are very different things.
I agree. That's why I'm saying using the money to defend against infringement suits as they arise makes more sense, instead of using it to try to change the system as a whole.
