A claim should fail 101 if it claims something that isn't one of the above. The were not claiming to invent a machine (the computer) They were not claiming to invent the process (hedging) They were not claiming to invent a specific improvement to a computer. (software added to the computer) Instead their claim was using a machine to solve a problem. That doesn't fall under 101 unless it falls under a patentable process. SCOTUS said that the 2 step process of (take exising process) and (apply it on a computer) is just a drafting trick to get a patent on old things. If you remove the drafting trick then you have a process with no steps. So they rejected it under 101.

I would also like to point out that the patent did not contain code. Alice wasn't patenting their implimentation with code. They were patenting the idea of fixing it with code. If they actually had an implimentation then they could get a narrow patent on the implimentation using 101. But a broad patent on the idea is blocked by 101.

Sure the computer is a machine. These patent doesn't tell you how to build a computer. They don't tell you how to improve a computer. If anything they might be processes. SCOTUS as a wierd deffinition of process where they try to limit it too what Congress was thinking when they wrote the law.

Yeah it sort of the difference between a problem statement and a solution to a problem. SCOTUS just ruled that using a computer isn't an inventive solution to a problem. By writing it the way they did they just restated the problem. In this case the solution to the problem was already known. So it could of been rejected under another part of the patent act. But that is not super important.

A computer can be a person. Are you saying I can't speak to a person in code and tell them a series of steps? That by doing so I have turned thier brain into a machine that is infringing? If I teach my dog to do the steps is my dog a new invention?

Well they didn't really invent it. They just gave a name to something that was in the act.

So what do you call something that isn't a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter"
SCOTUS gave it a name. They named it "abstract idea".

Mueller isn't a lawyer.

Well the district court did that because this case is almost identical to Bilski. And Bilski was invalidated on section 101. This is just a different kind of hedging than was in Bilski. No need to spend time looking to see if it was new when SCOTUS already said it was abstract.

I think the above is one of the most important parts of the ruling. Basically stating that your patents stores data, or calculates something won't make it patent elligible if it wasn't patent elligible to start with. You could extend similer thinking to internet patents when talking about "well-understood, routine, convention activiteis"

It was invalidated because the process it describes is super super old. They only thing they added to the old process was using a computer. So if you invent something actually new. Then you can patent that. But "old idea + computer" is not patentable.

I 'm sure Amazon does. I probably just costs more.

Well there is the possiblility that Japan sold the plutionium. (seem suicidal but stranger things have happened)

That is bs. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock...
Comcast total debt issuance has flucuated between -2 billion and 2.5 billion over the last 5 years. Compare that with the dividends it pays out in 2014: Quarterly Dividends and Quarterly Share Repurchases Increased 35.5% to $1.3 Billion

I would have the parent company own 0% of the child companies. Parent would make 100% of its money as a holding company selling access to the index. Franchise would make marginal profits based on how well the sell ads. Of course I'm not a lawyer so this could be a stupid idea.

This doesn't fix the root cause. I have 1 ISP in my region that provides cable internet. As long as they have monopoly power they will abuse it. Fix the monopoly issue and the federal goverment might not need to regulate the internet like this.