So you refuse to accept the fact, for which there is evidence[1], that in given time and place, courts ruled object code not to be copyrightable, and furthermor

So you refuse to accept the fact, for which there is evidence[1], that in given time and place, courts ruled object code not to be copyrightable, and furthermore it was not a solitary ruling and it was consistent with the rules of law at the time, so you call the ruling spectacularly ridiculous. You may call it an argument. I may then argue by refusing to accept it. [1] please view pdf linked above