Law 360, a site for lawyers, says that the EFF now uses the SCOTUS ruling against many software patents. The article, which is behind paywall (common practice among lawyers and legal sites), says: "The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Alice Corp. decision means that thousands of software patents that claim abstract ideas must be found invalid, including an online advertising patent owned by Ultramercial Inc., the Electronic Frontier Foundation has told the Federal Circuit."
"Some patents are already being rejected based on the recent ruling."
The significance of all this is very high. It is a game changer. Things are changing for the better. Despite that, The National Law Journal, a site for lawyers, goes with the headline "No, 'Alice' Wasn't a 'Death Knell' for Software Patents" and another lawyers' site (links in page 6) to "Getting your software patents approved", which is basically the voice of patent lawyers who can't accept the new reality. Here we have a very vocal software patents booster speaking with Mark Lemley. His article starts as follows:
My immediate reaction was that this would be extremely bad for software patents. Many others thought I was engaging in extreme exaggeration. Since then, however, the Patent Office has started issuing Alice rejections where no previous 101 patent eligibility rejection stood, they have been withdrawing notices of allowance after the issue fee has been paid in order to issue Alice rejections, and the Federal Circuit is strictly applying the nebulous “Alice standard” to find software patent claims patent ineligible.
It is now clear that the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice fundamentally changed the law and future of software patents, at least those already issued and applications already filed, which cannot be changed without adding new matter. Those applications were filed at a different time and under a substantially different regime.
Intellectual Ventures, the world's largest patent troll and a general tax on innovation, diverting over $6 billion away from actual innovators, has always been really stunningly good at getting the tech press to repeat questionable claims about its "real intentions" and how it's helping to "drive innovation." Every time the negative press catches up to IV's really nefarious practices, it comes up with a way to try to spin the story around again, like that time it tried to claim its real goal was to help everyone sort through good and bad patents.