I think, due to the high number of patents that simply aren't valuable, this would be true regardless of the case.
In the only possible good case for the system, it prevents two rivals from sueing each other because they very likely infringe on each other already.
The patent troll problem is of course absolutely terrible. Anybody can sue anybody, they don't have to be right - they might not win, but there's costs and time involved. And we also have "practiced" court systems in a certain area that make money basically exclusively off of this.
I think it's safe to say that most software most companies produce violates a large number of existing patents - whether they know it or not - because dilligence around rejecting incoming patents for novelty or prior art is so bad, and patent language is so terribly obfuscated.
Once, I knew some folks at a three-letter computer company who basically patented a scroll bar. In the late 90s.
It may provide somewhat of a chilling effect to people starting new businesses, but it doesn't seem to be that rampant.
But do patents provide a useful library for sharing technological ideas after X years? Not in most cases.