On December 6, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Maybe, just maybe, this persistent issue will be decided once and for all.
Oddly, many of the principal claims of one patent in question didn't even use the word “computer” (though others did). In essence, the patents define a business method for sidestepping the risk that once booked, derivatives credit transaction, might not “settle” because one party or the other might not have the required assets. The patents in question claim a way of shifting that risk to a “shadow”, a third party having irrevocable control over certain assets of both contracting parties. In other words, and escrow. The third party then settles the trade, thereby eliminating the risk.
Doesn't this sound a lot like what you did when you bought your last home? That's how it must have seemed to five of the nine judges (a bare majority), though they were loath to admit it in their separate opinions.
Still, the heart of Judge Lourie's “majority” opinion seems clear, even though he himself only “concurred” in it, with just four of his fellow judges joining in:
