6) (Misuse) The underlying purpose of the patent system was to encourage the creative genius for the benefit of the public. Has the public benefited in this case?

There are two things wrong with this objection that I can see: (1) What is relevant is whether the public derives a NET (no pun intended!) benefit from the patent system, not whether it has benefittted in this particular case. We can't decide, ex post, whether to extend patent protection to something that is patentable under the law, else the law will cease to provide the incentives that encourage innovation. (2) We may have, in fact, benefitted. The question is whether anyone would have come up with the algorithim & given it away if it weren't for the possibility of making some money off of it. Maybe they would have; it *is* certain that in a few years (how many, exactly? anyone know?) the patent will expire, & we will enjoy the full use of the algorithm free of patent restrictions, right?