This is an interesting patent case that is winding its way to the Supreme Court. I encourage you to follow the story. It will clearly have an impact on the software/IT world.
As a service firm, we don’t deal with ownership of code very often, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
One thing that strikes me is the implication that a software method doesn’t transform a machine: that’s exactly what software is intended to do, isn’t it? It seems that creating unique instructions that then cause a machine to do something doesn’t vary if that machine happens to be displaying light on a monitor or allows you to bang keys into a strip of ink held over a piece of paper.