Sounds like some jurisprudential butterfly chasing. I'm inclined to think Alsup's basis of "sequence, structure, and organization" not being copyrightable is f

Sounds like some jurisprudential butterfly chasing. I'm inclined to think Alsup's basis of "sequence, structure, and organization" not being copyrightable is far too broad a change, with ramifications beyond this specific case. (This is what allows lists, like a phone book, to be copyrightable, even though the numbers are public). I'd have thought the reverse engineering exceptions were a more apt basis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality However, that's where Oracle's argument about the "fan-base" comes in: it wasn't purely interoperability between machines that Google wanted, but the installed base of developers. I haven't followed the exact policy considerations for reverse engineering, but it seems to me that the training of engineers to work on a particular machine is part-and-parcel of interoperability (for example, third-party after-market car parts - not only do they fit, but mechanics already know how to fit them; a more relevant example is IBM mainframes/minicomputers being copied, where programmers already knew the platform). So, the higher court's consideration of the bigger picture may have serious financial consequences for Google and Oracle. I think Oracle will still lose, just on a different basis. It's good to be appellate judge.