I guess that is a way of saying opposite easily without definition. You are right in the fact that they may press forward. Before they do they will read all of the Supreme Courts statements including this one.
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The patents at issue in this case disclose a computerimplemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” (i.e., the risk that only one party to a financial transaction willpay what it owes) by using a third-party intermediary.The question presented is whether these claims are patenteligible under 35 U. S. C. §101, or are instead drawn to apatent-ineligible abstract idea. We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computerimplementation fails to transform that abstract idea into apatent-eligible invention. We therefore affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the FederalCircuit.
To me, and again, maybe I am wrong. But I see the bascom patents as using a computer to collect data from individual sites, papers, excel, word, and other sites. So in general, your collecting data on people (which anyone would do) only using the computer and a basic setup software to do it.
Hope I am wrong for DSS and shareholders, which I will be...
Much based off of this stuff :
Turning to the second step of Mayo’s framework: The method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it witha computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficientresult. Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolizethe [abstract idea] itself.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
