I like reading the SCOTUS hearing on Bilski

>> pointed out that it is normal for Congress to add exceptions into the law to add something else, but they hardly ever remove.

I forgot to clarify. The reason this is a smart approach at least in this case is that, if you assume too broad a scope (eg, over the meaning of "process"), then you almost guarantee that the law will have to be struck down (or else narrowed in scope anyway) in order to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's requirement of promoting progress because some of the patents that would be allowed by a broad law would not promote the progress.

Also, here is one part of the transcript I really liked, to which PJ from groklaw added commentary:

*****
[Government/plaintiff lawyer, Mr Stewart, arguing against business method patents but likely for software patent methods]>> Now -- now, we do think that software innovations can have the effect of causing the computer to be a different, special purpose computer, as the phrase --

...

[JUSTICE STEVENS]>> I don't understand why that isn't just the application of a process, which -- which is not itself patentable subject matter, to a particular machine that can use process --

[JUSTICE KENNEDY]>> That's -- that's a problem I have.

Me too.

Stewart then says it's comparable to a "better television or a better DVD", which don't transform anything. Justice Stevens sees a difference, saying, "It's not on a computer, which the only difference from the old computer is it's using a new program. You can't say that's a new machine." Mr. Stewart fumbles a bit, then says, but what if you improved the hardware? To which Justice Stevens says, "But that patent didn't require any change in the hardware, as I remember it correctly," referring to State Street. But, but, says Mr. Stewart, programming a computer to produce...er, to perform new functions can create a novel.... He is interrupted by Justice Breyer:

[Justice Breyer]>> But then all we do is every example that I just gave, that I thought were examples that certainly would not be patented, you simply patent them. All you do is just have a set of instructions for saying how to set a computer to do it. Anyone can do that. Now, it's a machine. So all the business patents are all right back in.
*****

Also, here is a text/html transcript: http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/