🚀 go-pugleaf

Can anyone who has been researching the computer-patent issue offer some
perspective on Pamela Samuelson's article from the most recent Communications
of the ACM?  She reviews three major patent cases from the 1970's and a few
others that are less significant.  I can't tell how selective she's been.  The
general impressions I got from the article are:

	1.  The Patent Office has usually been very strict in granting
	    patents, with a record that the LPF could approve.  The cases that
	    came before court in the 1970's were attempts of would-be patent
	    holders to overrule Patent Office rejections.

	2.  The appellate courts have obliged the petitioners in several
	    significant cases during the 1970's, thus trying to force the
	    Patent Office to be more liberal in granting patents.  Luckily,
	    the Supreme Court upheld the Patent Office and denied the patents.

	3.  As more cases came up to the Supreme Court, their decisions seemed
	    to weaken.  While still denying the patents, they used ambiguous
	    language that some lawyers have used to obtain patents, even
	    though the Supreme Court lawyers for probably meant to rule out
	    such patents.

So I'm asking:  does this trend really exist?  Or have I gotten a false
impression because Samuelson chose to discuss the merits of a few cases?