[WildUtah]

(My point of view is that we would be better off without software patents. It would be hard to find a US patent lawyer or court who would agree.)

Justice Stevens wrangled four votes on the Supreme Court for that proposition as recently as 2010. If we could replace some of the pro-software patent majority (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito) in the Bilsky decision, maybe Breyer could wrangle five votes someday.

Of course, the CAFC might just overrule the Supreme Court if that ever happens.

(You say the CAFC can't overrule the Supreme Court? Wrong-o! [0] Don't read the link unless you're in a profanity-safe environment; not because it contains profanity, but because you're likely to shout some.)

[0] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-pr...

[fpgeek]

Sadly, since 2010 the mountain has gotten a bit higher: the "no software patents" side has lost Stevens' vote and his replacement Kagan's position is unclear.

[btilly]

Patent lawyers tend to be significantly more in favor of patents than Justice Stevens.

As for courts, given currently binding precedent for software patents, barring changes in legislation, no court other than the Supreme Court should decide that software patents should not be allowed. Given that the Supreme Court failed to come to that conclusion, it is hard to find a court that would say that. :-(