I find this question very ambiguous. Either software patents (or patents in general) are a good idea or they are not a good idea.
Asking whether good things have been done with proceeds from licensing software (or other) patents is a different question entirely, and inevitably leads to the answer: yes. (Of course some patent holders have used the income to do good things!)
I cannot speak for the HN readership in general of course, but I suspect the downvotes come from folks who don't believe you've added anything to the conversation. It is perfectly reasonable to say 'this is an ambiguous question' if you follow up with 'I chose to interpret it this way ... and my response is ...' or 'The definition 'good' here isn't well understood, does good mean socially good or corporately good, or good as in you won't go to hell if you do it good?'
So yes, the question can be interpreted in many ways, when I read it I felt the OP was trying to find examples which support the claim that the software patents are 'good' where good means they provide a net benefit to the community.
That being said, software patents are an emotional topic here and sometimes that overwhelms the conversation.
I appreciate your reply. I do think I was trying to add to the conversation, if only by pointing out that the question itself was not as well posed as it could have been. Perhaps I should have gone the extra mile and offered an opinion based on one (or both) readings of the question.
Asking whether good things have been done with proceeds from licensing software (or other) patents is a different question entirely, and inevitably leads to the answer: yes. (Of course some patent holders have used the income to do good things!)