I wish it were true, but

"As to machine implementation, Applicants themselves admit that the language of claim 1 does not limit any process step to any specific machine or apparatus. See Appellants' Br. at 11. As a result, issues specific to the machine implementation part of the test are not before us today. We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine."

"... although invited to do so by several amici, we decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court ... We also note that the process claim at issue in this appeal is not, in any event, a software claim. Thus, the facts here would be largely unhelpful in illuminating the distinctions between those software claims that are patent-eligible and those that are not."

"Applicants here seek to claim a non-transformative process that encompasses a purely mental process of performing requisite mathematical calculations without the aid of a computer or any other device, [...] it does not involve transforming an article into a different state or thing. Therefore, Applicants' claim is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101."

In other words: water still wet, sun still shines. If you have a software patent which does not claim a machine and does not claim to transform something, it's not valid. The norm in software patents has always been to specify a machine, since they were first ruled as valid, resulting in a patent on the combination of a machine and software (which is why software doesn't violate until combined with a machine).

There are a couple of loud pundits claiming in re Bilski invalidates software patents, but I simply don't see it and the majority quite clearly states that they are not doing so. I challenge anyone claiming otherwise to point out a specific software patent which would be valid under the prior case law but not valid under this decision.

(Business method patents, OTOH…)