the technologies at issue here are not sophisticated: they are self-replicating novelty items. just as software patents are not warranted in the realm of self-replicating software, patents are not warranted in this realm, unless novel features provide a significant improvement over existing items. the features of the nintendo wiimote, for example, were a combination of prior technologies: inertial sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, rotation sensors, and cameras.
to the extent that the technology at issue is the input for production of a physical good, there may be little that distinguishes the technology at issue from the prior art. in that case, it seems to me that the \"story\" of the prior art would be reasonably extensive and not particularly susceptible to copyright protection, given the nature of the technology.
the supreme court has been fairly clear on this issue: to be sufficiently described, prior art must be set forth as a disclosure. many of the claims at issue here are the same as patents and patent claims - technology that is easily copied once disclosed, and so is a very poor model for the rule of law.
you are implicitly conceding that the software has creative elements and is not patentable otherwise. if there is no creative output from the program, which we are told there is here, why are these patents necessary?
one of the whole point of the patent regime is that we incentivize inventors to come up with new ways to create desirable products. by granting them something, we make it more likely that inventors will come up with new ways to create products. this is why we have juries, who are a key reason we don't have mob rule.