You say "the patent bar is usally quite good at rebutting" and give a link to someone making unsubstantiated claims that the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about.
Engineer, lawyer, whoever you are, a logical argument traces evidence from A to Z, such that another logical thinker, even from another field, can follow the argument with sufficient effort and study. Though I am not a lawyer, I do not see this blog post as an effective, logical rebuttal to the Supreme Court. I see no compelling reason to side with those who choose to ignore Supreme Court precedent.
I haven't read Bilski in its entirety, but on the very first page of the syllabus I read them slamming down the State Street decision and reaffirming Benson, Flook and Diehr. If software patents will not be subject to any categorical challenge for years to come, I think it will be in spite of Bilski, not because of it. I'd be interested in any detailed arguments to the contrary.
Engineer, lawyer, whoever you are, a logical argument traces evidence from A to Z, such that another logical thinker, even from another field, can follow the argument with sufficient effort and study. Though I am not a lawyer, I do not see this blog post as an effective, logical rebuttal to the Supreme Court. I see no compelling reason to side with those who choose to ignore Supreme Court precedent.
I haven't read Bilski in its entirety, but on the very first page of the syllabus I read them slamming down the State Street decision and reaffirming Benson, Flook and Diehr. If software patents will not be subject to any categorical challenge for years to come, I think it will be in spite of Bilski, not because of it. I'd be interested in any detailed arguments to the contrary.