Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_... : " On Ju

Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_... : " On June 19, 2014 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International that "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." [5][6][7] The ruling continued: [...] the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility.[] Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”[]. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to“implemen[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” [] that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. " So just how broken and captured are lower US courts that, despite a supreme court decision invalidating software patents, this kind of extortion continues? Are software patents only invalid for those who can afford to litigate all the way to the supreme court, and the lower courts are ignoring this ruling?