In this case, it is patents, where the Supreme Court ruling in  Alice v. CLS Bank has created a new legal landscape, which has seen regular reversals of “do it on a computer” patents:

The Supreme Court’s June ruling on the patentability of software — its first in 33 years — raised as many questions as it answered. One specific software patent went down in flames in the case of Alice v. CLS Bank, but the abstract reasoning of the decision didn’t provide much clarity on which other patents might be in danger.

Now a series of decisions from lower courts is starting to bring the ruling’s practical consequences into focus. And the results have been ugly for fans of software patents. By my count there have been 11 court rulings on the patentability of software since the Supreme Court’s decision — including six that were decided this month. Every single one of them has led to the patent being invalidated. 

This doesn’t necessarily mean that all software patents are in danger — these are mostly patents that are particularly vulnerable to challenge under the new Alice precedent. But it does mean that the pendulum of patent law is now clearly swinging in an anti-patent direction. Every time a patent gets invalidated, it strengthens the bargaining position of every defendant facing a lawsuit from a patent troll.

Until the supreme court slapped down the patent court, it had been routing for people to get patents for existing processes by adding, “We are doing it through the internet,” as the magic words.

Not any more.

A typical patent being overturned was, “A patent on the concept of using a computer to help users plan meals while achieving dieting goals.”

Because using a notebook to diet is so completely unlike using a computer, I guess.

In any case, it’s nice to see the patent trolls on the wrong side of this trend.