Yes there are many, you just haven't seen any. Your perception is probably biased because you only get exposed to examples of bad patents cherry-picked by online media sources to drum up rage views. I've worked for a small company that got crushed by bigger incumbents but could only get a payout due to their software patents. However the much more common benefit of software patents are the countless startups and companies that got funded or had successful exits partially due to their patents. There are studies showing this sort of things. On mobile so can't find link, but see e.g. the work of professors like Robert P. Merges on ssrn.com.
Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question to validate that it's even a legitimate question. It's like the creationism/evolution "debate". I can simply say that there's no validity at all to the creationism arguments without providing any argument at all. Similar to the idea that I don't need to provide an argument to reject any other sort of baseless idea of false equivalence or unwarranted appeal to agnosticism.
Well, I indeed do not believe that patents are actually good, but there's far more merit to the unconvincing arguments that patents can be good than to any arguments that software patents can be good. There are good reasons that many people (particularly among those who understand software) fundamentally oppose the entire concept of software patents without opposing all patents.
"I'm obviously right, so there" is not an argument. If you want to convince a poor foolish Philistine like myself, you need to actually discuss your evidence and conclusions.
