@article{49239,
      author = {Schechter, Peter, and Angell, Edwards,},
      url = {http://tind.wipo.int/record/49239},
      title = {Still At Risk Regardless of Bilski's Outcome.},
      abstract = {Peter Schechter of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge exposes  some very uncomfortable questions facing the owners of US  patents for computer-implemented inventions.   By the time  you read this, it's a fair bet that we will all be busy  studying the US Supreme Court's much-anticipated Bilski  decision. [i] Patent lawyers, judges, litigants and  scholars will be trying their best to understand, in light  of whatever that decision says, when an invention that  includes an algorithm (using the term in its broadest  sense) that is expressed as a process step, or series of  process steps, constitutes "statutory" patentable subject  matter under the Patent Act, 35 United States Code, Section  101. It seems highly doubtful, in this author's opinion,  that the Supreme Court's answer to the question will be  "never"; instead, we will be left with precedential fodder  for judicial interpretation for years to come.},
      recid = {49239},
      pages = {GB 139 June 2010 ;},
}