An interesting statement on things that may be relevant in the grand scheme of the trial, but, unless I'm really missing something here, the verdict was about b

An interesting statement on things that may be relevant in the grand scheme of the trial, but, unless I'm really missing something here, the verdict was about busting an NDA (the Code being downstream of the NDA violation). Hence the $500M vs the $4B in damages. If it was just about code, then I'm sure Carmack's points would hold up just as well as they read in hindsight. But - and it's a big but - keep in mind his post is in a vacuum of sorts by not relating it back to the mechanics of how the case was actually ruled. Again, I might be missing something in his post, but I don't think so. As for this part: >The notion of non-literal copying is probably delicious to many lawyers, since a sufficient application of abstraction and filtering can show that just about everything is related. There are certainly some cases where it is true, such as when you translate a book into another language, but copyright explicitly does not apply to concepts or algorithms, so you can’t abstract very far from literal copying before comparing. As with many legal questions, there isn’t a bright clear line where you need to stop. Non-literal copying is why I like the "Gaye Family vs. Blurred Lines" verdict and why a wide swath of business folks and industry creatives hate it. Also, it's nearly a 1:1 if you want to talk about Code like Carmack does or Music like Musicians do. It's a totally reasonable thought experiment for one side to claim "Well, a jury of non-musicians ruled the wrong way and called it derivative" to which I'd counter "Well, a jury of expert musicians would probably rule the same way because they understand the nuances even better than the average lay person." Again, these are hypothetical arguments with real-world consequences, but I don't think these cases can be easily ruled upon. There's always going to be some hard feelings at the end of it.