The entire idea behind patents on "business methods" is utterly flawed. It is not an idea which had gained any substantive international legitimacy. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the EU do not recognize them. Japan has only limited recognition - and at a fundamentally higher level than American patent law purports to protect.
When a new field of patent law lacks economic rationale, logical force and moral legitimacy, it's unlikely to be respected or adopted. And business methods patents are not respected - and have been essentially rejected in all industrial nations other than the USA.
Indeed, they only work at all in any international sense because the United States is the world's largest market and so can enforce a judgment domestically by denying future access to the American market. If, say, Denmark had unilaterally came up with and tried to enforce the idea of "business methods" patents, their international trade would have been shut down shortly thereafter with a hard slap by other nations for stepping out of line.
But, it's America - so for practical reasons that do not apply to lesser countries, their judgments arising from business methods patents are practically enforceable on a domestic basis - even though virtually no other country respects these patents for foreign enforcement purposes.
The "solution" to these patents is to simply get rid of them as a failed idea that burdens business and stilfes innovation, without any of the underlying benefits that patent law is aimed to promote.
That decision requires, at a political level in Washington, to simply point the finger at somebody else and say that "they" got it wrong, and "reform" is the answer. That is already underway in Congress.
At a judicial level, the undecurrent hostile to expanded business method patent interpetation is now showing up too. In particular the Bilki case suggests that the last decade's worth of business method patents ought never to have been granted by the USPTO. Judges are not stupid - they read newspapers and the Internet too and see what lawmakers are struggling with. They are in as good a position as anybody else to recognize that an interpretation of the law by the USPTO which does not promote ecnomic growth and which brings the administration of justice into disrepute is highly undesireable. Judges, more than anyone, intensely dislike legislation and interpretations of statutes that are not fundamentally aimed at addressing an injustice. Where there is no moral outrage - injustice (which, unlike justice, is a visceral response to a given set of facts) cannot result.
Whether we get that result now - or in another decade - remains to be seen. But that's where the tracks for this train end. It's simply a question of time as to how long it will take us to get there.