Quote: <i>the Supreme Court ruled very narrowly in the Bilski case, without making any explicit statement (as precedent) on overall software or business model patents</i><p>I really don't get why so many people say this. The Court ruled narrowly on the particular question before them, but they were 9-0 on what software patent opponents care about. They all, majority and dissent, said not to use State Street as precedent. Further, the majority affirmed the Federal Circuit opinion that said to ignore their earlier State Street and Alappat opinions.<p>We're back to Benson, Flook, and Diehr. Any patent where the novelty and non-obviousness is entirely contained in software should be invalid right now. Why is this not recognized?