"Recent decision doesn't change much, except that the Court’s decision was at odds with 150 years of patent law, says a legal expert. […] the Justices were in fact leaving the wording of the test open in anticipation of new technology, [said former ABA chair Richard] Field. Although no one in 150 years has defined the test to include things that might be coming up in the next 20 years, the Court essentially said, “We should keep those words open just in case,” he explained. […] Unlike Field, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot help but think that the Court’s decision may make it more difficult for new technology to come to market. In that case, consumers lose."