I respect "Satoshi Nakamoto's" right to remain anonymous. Since we don't know the reason for the anonymity it is not clear whether or not knowing who "Satoshi Nakamoto" is would be in our best interest.
There are a few facts that might help explain the anonymity behind bitcoin:
One thing that is clear from the original bitcoin client code is that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a brilliant programmer. Most likely at the time of bitcoin's release "Satoshi Nakamoto" was employed as something such as a software engineer and had worked on bitcoin as a spare time hobby.
Another thing that is clearly demonstrated from "Satoshi Nakamoto's" original forum postings is that "Satoshi Nakamoto" fully intended for bitcoin to be open source.
If the assumptions that "Satoshi Nakamoto" was working in the software industry at the time of bitcoin's release and that "Satoshi Nakamoto" intended for bitcoin to be open source are both true; I believe the most likely reason for the pseudonym is that "Satoshi Nakamoto's" employment contract gave the employer of "Satoshi Nakamoto" first rights to claim bitcoin as the employer's intellectual property. The pseudonym allowed Satoshi Nakamoto to be employed while also not letting the employer claim bitcoin as proprietary.
What would happen if this scenario is true? What if someone doxed "satoshi Nakamoto's" true identity and "Satoshi Nakamoto's" employer at the time went to the courts to claim bitcoin belonged to the employer? Based on what the legal jurisdiction's contract laws are the employer could have a strong case and win all the rights to bitcoin software.
Then where would we be?
Photo Source: infobtc.net