No you don't C# Justice Breyer

"Seeing" requires more than
just considering your eyes
and saying "apply them".

"Seeing" means taking note
of ALL the details by using
an appendage of the eyeballs
sometimes referred to as the brain.

In the released tape recordings of Alice v. CLS

(here)
Justice Breyer claims to see the whole picture
as being nothing more than:
(1) King Tut's pile of gold and chits
(2) An abacus-using man
(3) And the abstract idea of Mom yelling "Stop!" (if you C# where he is going with that).

That indeed is comical
but at the same time dishonest
and disrespectful of the full list
of patents and claims involved
and of the specific details of
their complex and detailed disclosures.

TO ABSTRACT ALL THIS COMPLEXITY DOWN
TO THE SIMPLITUDE OF
HAVING AN "IDEA" AND
SAYING APPLY IT TO "A COMPUTER"
and then CALLING YOUR OWN ABSTRACTION,
AN "ABSTRACTION" is no different than
killing your parents and labeling yourself
an un-entangled "orphan" deserving of mercy.

Seriously?
Are these Serious Men (and Women)?
Is ignorance of your own ignorance an excuse under the law?

At times in the audio tape (link also above)
we can hear the Justices nervously laughing
at the admittedly complex geek flowcharts
with their boxes and arrows going all over the place.

Transcript page 30:
24 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that's a
25 little more complicated. He referred us to Joint
[Transcript page 31:]
1 Appendix Page 159, which is not a change in how
2 computers work. But it is constitutes the
3 instructions about how to use the computer and where it
4 needs to be affected. And just looking at it, it looks
5 pretty complicated. There are a lot of arrows and
6 they you know, different things that go 7
(Laughter.)
8 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but I mean,
9 you know, it in different directions. And I
10 understand him to say that in each of those places,
11 that's where the computer is needed.

[post incomplete and still under construction]

Close Patent Encounters of the Go Ask Alice Kind

Well, thanks to the oral hearings transcript (here)
and tape recorded orals (here)
for March 31, 2014
we finally have first contact
(of the King Tut kind) with
the mythologies, thoughts and fantasies that are bubbling and troubling within the heads of our Supreme Court Justices.

The crux of the issue,
in Alice v. CLS [Big] Bank
apparently revolves around "ideas" and not just ideas, but those of the subclass, "abstract" (as opposed to those of the subclass, "concrete") and the triviality of "coding" it once the idea is stated.

According to Justice Ginsburg there is a
"degree" of abstractness in
each of the " abstract ideas".
Some ideas are apparently more abstract than others.
Page 4 of oral hearing transcript:

5 JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Phillips, on the
6 abstract idea [thing], you know that the Bilski case held that
7 [computer-implemented] hedging qualified as an "abstract idea."
So how is ... 8 [computer-implemented financial and] intermediate
settlement [any less of an] abstract [idea] than [Bilski's] hedging?

According to Justice Kennedy, irrespective
of whether an "idea" is abstract or concrete,
once you have it, and state that idea to any handful of computer geeks, implementation is trivial:
Page 5, line 7:
7 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, let me put it this
8 way. If you describe that [(where "that" may refer to the whole of Alice's patent disclosure as summarized by PHILLIPS at pg 4, ln 16-pg 5, ln 6)] to a second year college
9 class in engineering and said "here’s my idea,"
10 now you go home and
you program ["that" on a single "computer"] over this weekend, my
11 guess is my guess is that that would be fairly easy
12 to program [because "programming" is all that is needed].

Page 12: (more on triviality of coding)
8 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Suppose I thought and,
9 again, it’s just a thought because I don’t have the
10 expertise that any computer [-savvy] group of people sitting
11 around a coffee shop in Silicon Valley could do this
12 over a weekend. Suppose I thought that.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: You mean wrote the code?
14 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Yes, right. [All that is needed is to write "code".]
...
Page 5: (continued from above)
15 JUSTICE KENNEDY: So the fact that the [one --(not true), see US5970479 at right]
16 "computer" is involved, it it seems to me, is necessary
17 to make it [(the whole system)] work.
But ... the innovative aspect
18 is certainly not in the creation of the program to make
19 that work [because programming is what any coffee clutch worth ..
of Silicon Valley nerds can do]. All you're talking about
[after stripping everything away, despite what 35 USC 112 says about inventor's regard]
is if I can use ... 20 the word [is merely] an "idea."
[In other words, in so far as what I, Kennedy J. understand, you are claiming no more than "an idea"!]

[... post still under construction ...]
SOME CASE ASPECTS ARE LEFT OUT OF THE ORAL HEARINGS THOUGH ...
(Click Read More to read on)