The internet is full of analysis about the Blinski opinion by the US Supreme Court. It has the potential to rewrite the rules of engagement for the patent world. In the end, it came out as I had predicted: Despite attorneys from both sides trying extremely hard to turn it into a test case for a rewrite of the rules, the justices (rightly) turned them down. In the end, they decided to look only at the merit of this case and decided that an age-old reasoning prevail: Blinski was an abstract idea.
There is one clarification: The test for deciding whether a patent should be granted is just a guide, a very useful guide, but it still cannot tell you for sure whether something can be patented.
Reading the justices chronicle of the events in this case shows one thing: Everyone in the case, from the Patent Office up to and including the Supreme Court, agrees that the method cannot be patented. The fact that different justifications were used by various judges/examiners in the process shows clearly that nobody, except perhaps the plaintiff, believe the patent should be granted. I think the final result is the correct and just one, i.e., no patent. However, this case throws the whole patenting process into disarray. The only consistent thing in the whole saga is the plaintiff insistence that he should get the patent, and his case for getting a patent. For the opposing party, it looks like they are just scrambling for a reason, any reason to reject the plaintiff’s application.
This is what I learned: No amount of effort can turn a dumb idea into a patent, but it can and will take a long time to establish that.