>Software patents are ... not a constitutional question
A constitutional argument could be made that software is not covered by the term "useful Arts". In fact, Justice Scalia suggested that the business-method patent in Bilksi might be invalidated on this ground during oral arguments:
> JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, if the government says that the -- that the term on which it hangs its hat is the term "useful arts" and that that meant, originally, and still means manufacturing arts, arts dealing with workmen, with -- you know, inventors, like Lorenzo Jones, not -- not somebody who writes a book on how to win friends and influence people. What is wrong with [the] analysis, that ..."useful arts" ... always was thought to deal with machines and inventions?
A constitutional argument could be made that software is not covered by the term "useful Arts". In fact, Justice Scalia suggested that the business-method patent in Bilksi might be invalidated on this ground during oral arguments:
> JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, if the government says that the -- that the term on which it hangs its hat is the term "useful arts" and that that meant, originally, and still means manufacturing arts, arts dealing with workmen, with -- you know, inventors, like Lorenzo Jones, not -- not somebody who writes a book on how to win friends and influence people. What is wrong with [the] analysis, that ..."useful arts" ... always was thought to deal with machines and inventions?