When the Supremes beat the patent-troll over the head with obviousness and lack of novelty, we can expect that they will shoot him down.
“JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, let me put it this way. If you describe that to a secondÂ year college class in engineering and said here’s ÂÂ here’s my idea, now you go home and you program over this weekend, my guess is that that would be fairly easy to program.
So the fact that the computer is involved, it seems to me, is necessary to make it work. But the innovative aspect is certainly not in the creation of the program to make that work. All you’re talking about is ÂÂ if I can use the word ÂÂ an “idea.””
What Justice Kennedy is going on about is that with just the idea, anyone reasonably skilled could solve the problem without referring to any software or patent-application. That’s sort of what I have been harping about for years now. Putting anything into a computer does not add any novelty or creativity. It’s logic, maths, language… not invention. Hence, software is not patentable. It’s a writing after all, something you claim copyright, not letters patent.