My post on Bilski mistaken refers to Justice Steven's concurring opinion as a dissent.  It is obviously not a dissent since he concurred in the judgment and agreed that Bilski's claims did not present patenable subject matter.

But, Justice Stevens did differ markedly from the majority opinion.  Justice Stevens argued for a rule barring business method patents.  The majority opinion had five votes for rejecting an outright categorical ban on all business method patents.  Therefore, Justice Steven's opinion is a minority position that presents an argument for such an outright ban.  In that sense, they only received 4 votes and can be said to have lost on that important issue.