>In Diamond v. Diehr, SCOTUS said that software was patentable insofar as it was part of a larger patentable system, the software in question being a controller

>In Diamond v. Diehr, SCOTUS said that software was patentable insofar as it was part of a larger patentable system, the software in question being a controller for a rubber mold. Not true. They said system could be patentable despite having software as a component. This is common sense. If an invention includes a pulley, a wheel, and a lever, you don't evaluate what's there if those non-novel elements are removed; you look at the whole system. SCOTUS said to look at the system as a whole, including the software. But the novelty and non-obviousness have to exist in the system as a whole. If it's only novel and non-obvious in the software, generally speaking, no patent. They did allow for the possibility that patentable software might possibly exist, but the gist of the ruling is that they hadn't seen such software yet. Also that it was up to congress to clarify, because they didn't feel 100% comfortable deciding if software could possibly be patentable. So they basically stopped a millimeter short of saying software couldn't be patented at all, and the State St ruling stuck a crowbar in that crack.