The decision reversing the 1998 case which allowed things like risk hedging strategies, the “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Washington, voted 9-3 that patents should be limited to ‘physical objects or substances’ and not be awarded to ‘abstractions’ like a bank’s risk-hedging strategy.”

Thiw will doubtless go to the Supreme Court, but this is fundamentally a good decision:

In its 132-page decision, the court said a patent can cover a “process that transforms a particular article to a specified different state or thing by applying a fundamental principle” but cannot cover the principle itself.

This is, I think, a response to the fact that the Supreme Court consistently reversing the court, and an understanding that they can no longer subscribe to the theory that everything should be patentable.