The implication of the SCOTUS ruling I'm talking about appears to be that there's no real limiting principle, since effectively every software is just the autom

The implication of the SCOTUS ruling I'm talking about appears to be that there's no real limiting principle, since effectively every software is just the automation of an abstract business process or mathematical theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law#What_software_patents_will_survive_Alice_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...? > What software patents will survive Alice analysis? > The question has been raised, therefore, what kinds of software-related patents will survive the analysis prescribed in Alice and Mayo. The question was considered during the oral argument of the Alice case, although not more than cursorily in the opinion. Counsel for CLS Bank suggested that data compression and data encryption were software technologies that are likely to be patent-eligible because they address "a business problem, a social problem, or a technological problem." The Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, said that it would be difficult to identify a patent-eligible business method unless it involved an improved technology, such as "a process for additional security point-of-sale credit card transactions using particular encryption technology" – "that might well be patent eligible."[40] > At least one commentator has questioned that, however, because encryption largely consists of mathematical operations using modular arithmetic and theorems of Euler.[41] Yet, as the commentator points out, in the Flook case the Supreme Court said: "As the CCPA has explained, 'if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory [patent ineligible].' " Furthermore, in July 2014, just after the Alice decision came down, a Federal Circuit panel held a patent ineligible, quoting Flook and adding: "Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible."[42] Judge Bryson's comments, quoted above, may therefore be more predictive of the likely outcomes of future software-related patent cases, including encryption ones, than counsel's assurances during oral argument in the Alice case.