For the sake of argument, I'll accept, for the moment, that software patents as a concept can be effective as limited monopolies granted inventors as a means to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Accepting that, what continues to baffle me is why its okay to make statements which imply patent infringement in a piece of software, to exhort money via private settlement agreement from users of that software, but then to deny the original creators of that software the ability to be told in specificity what the infringement claim is so that it can be addressed.
It's one thing to have a system of patents laws that attempts to see an equitable share of profits back to the original inventors via an infringement resolution process (whether it be in a court of law or via private settlement.) That is right and proper. It's quite another to have a system that actively encourages continued infringement as a revenue stream because the rights holder never has to reveal the infringement claims to the actual creators of the infringing work and in fact makes it a condition of settlements with users of that work that the original creators of the infringing work cannot be told what the specific infringement claims are.
Infringement should not be a revenue model to be managed and milked, by deliberately picking out technology users who are most likely to settle quietly but who do not control whether the underlying technology at issue is infringing. If there is an infringement claim, even if its settled out of court and behind closed doors, the creators of the original work should have a right to know what the claim is and should have the right to attempt to address the underlying infringement for all future users by re-engineering their software. If you are going to sue someone for using the linux kernel because it infringes your software patents, then you should be forced to tell the linux kernel developers what the infringement claims are.