What does that even mean?

Algorithms and logical constructs like computer code aren't patentable under US law if that's what you're talking about.

I'm not buying it. What you patent is a bunch of text that is clearly copyrightable.

If you patent a method how to organize APIs, that would be perfectly reasonable. In fact we have a bunch of patents like that for networking stuff.

Could you explain your line of thinking here a bit more?

Generally, a comment such as this should also include some words from you about what kind of point you're trying to make by referring to the longer work. I think you're trying to use this blog post as evidence that patent and copyright protection are mutually exclusive, but from skimming this post it seems to only say that they should be mutually exclusive, while the Federal Circuit apparently disagrees. So at the very least, you would need to also point out how this Supreme Court decision reaffirms the blog post's position and strikes down the Federal Circuit on that question. But that seems to be far beyond the subject matter that the Supreme Court has actually ruled on today.

And you still haven't addressed why anyone should prefer APIs to be covered by copyright rather than patent law, when patents have much shorter duration and are more easily challenged.

> Generally, a comment such as this should also include some words from you about what kind of point you're trying to make by referring to the longer work.

Those words were in the previous post.

> And you still haven't addressed why anyone should prefer APIs to be covered by copyright rather than patent law, when patents have much shorter duration and are more easily challenged.

If we know it would be fair use, then copyright is rendered harmless. So in the choice between patents and neutered copyright, it patents are worse.

The blog post presents legal arguments why (with existing SCOTUS rulings) they should be considered separate. I could repeat all that, or just ask you to read it.

It's not an either/or.