Although the HTC's attorneys lost, they at least used modern and computer-specific arguments instead of something from ancient Greece used by SA's attorneys.
From the article:
The district court ignored the specific requirements of the claims and simply abstracted the concept to “selecting a program, verifying whether the program is licensed, and acting on the program according to the verification.”
Reversing the lower court ruling, the court pointed out that this analysis clearly ignores the concrete requirements of the claims—using a part of the computer (a specific portion of the BIOS memory) to solve the technical problem of preventing unauthorized use of software. Instead, this claim focuses on a specific improvement in computer capabilities using the BIOS memory.