[brlewis]

In the Bilski case, the Supreme Court reminded us that Benson, Flook and Diehr are still good precedent. So patenting the idea of running the algorithm on a computer is also not upheld by current precedent.

Oh, they also said to ignore State Street, the precedent that upholds software patents. But they're just the Supreme Court. Nobody listens to them in this area anyway. I know I sound sarcastic, but I'm serious.

[mistercow]

I had forgotten about Bilski. Still, if the courts don't listen to a precedent, is it really a precedent?

[excuse-me]

Yes, all you have to do is hire more lawyers than Apple/IBM/Microsoft or whoever.

Go to court in East Texas and persuade a jury that a bunch of damn Yankee judges up there in Washington know better than an honest American corporation.