I guess it could be, but I think his point is that from a libertarian angle, the government should be out of the picture as much as possible. And one of the biggest ways to do this is invalidating software patents which would remove some of the massive barriers of entry needed to compete against the Googles/Facebooks.
That makes sense. If the original complaint wasn't "busting trusts" is opposed to libertarian values, but rather "some of the existing techniques to bust trusts" is opposed to libertarian values, then this makes sense as the libertarian friendly approach to busting trusts.
I don't see how that is separate from "trust busting", but rather just another way to bust trusts?