>The Supreme Court has clearly said that software patents don't fall under the exclusion for abstract ideas
I think this statement is too broad. They've clearly said that some software patents don't fall under the exclusion for abstract ideas (as you say, no categorical exclusion). There remains an open question as to how to determine whether a given software patent covers an abstract idea, which is ostensibly what this case is about.
I think this statement is too broad. They've clearly said that some software patents don't fall under the exclusion for abstract ideas (as you say, no categorical exclusion). There remains an open question as to how to determine whether a given software patent covers an abstract idea, which is ostensibly what this case is about.