Got a citation for that? I didn't think so.
I disagree with their description of the 1981 Diehr opinion as saying "the only new feature of this invention was the timing process controlled by the computer". The dissent said this, not the majority. The dissent was based on the facts of the case, not law. Diehr was not a departure from earlier precedent.
EDIT: Not only did the Court majority not say what bitlaw says in the Diehr opnion, they contradict it: "According to the respondents, the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press, are all new in the art."
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/bilski-and-software-pa...
From what's actually written in the Supreme Court opinions I've read, every software patent I've seen discussed on HN should be invalid. Benson and Flook were super clear. Diehr was long and hard to read, but when you boil it down, it didn't change anything; it merely clarified that software as part of an invention doesn't automatically make the whole invention nonstatutory. I haven't read Bilski, but it sounds like SCOTUS punted on clarifying things because they think it should be Congress's job.
Until Congress steps up and clarifies, I think the previous Supreme Court decisions should be law. But they aren't. I find that extremely annoying.