Bitlaw opines that the Supreme Court's Bilski didn't clear things up. I'd be interested in seeing a concise analysis stating otherwise.

http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/bilski-and-software-pa...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think SCt Bilski does anything but muddy the water. But it's simply not the case that there is binding precedent that software is nonstatutory. That's all I was talking about.

From a practical standpoint, you're absolutely right, and I certainly hope nobody takes what I'm saying as legal advice.

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.