The US Supreme Court just ruled In re. Bilski. They upheld the appeals court decision that Mr. Bilski should *not* get his algorithm patent.

My understanding is that the court reaffirmed that algorithms cannot be patented, but that machines and processes can. It rejected the "machine or transformation" test as the *only* rule, and declined giving rules altogether:

"With ever more people trying to innovate and thus seeking patent protections for their inventions, the patent law faces a great challenge in striking the balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over procedures that others would discover by independent, creative application of general principles. Nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck."

So, as I see it, the US is now in the same boat as the EU: the extremes are clear and the middle is left undecided, and now the courts must decide each case on its own merits until there is enough case law to establish a clear rule, or set of rules. The difference of course is that the EU courts are not (yet?) flooded with high profile cases.

I wonder how the other 50% of the world economy will set its rules.

Paul