The appeals court argument seems reasonable, if applied in a more typical context of creative end user content. Mickey Mouse is copyrightable because he's not j

The appeals court argument seems reasonable, if applied in a more typical context of creative end user content. Mickey Mouse is copyrightable because he's not just any old mouse, but rather a specific one. But as for API's? Although Sun might have had choices, there is no a priori added value derived from the specific choices they did make, other than the fact that they have become standardized, so engineers are used to working with them. Mickey is Mickey because the specific qualities Disney gave him, in and of itself makes him rather more interesting than some randomly chosen rodent. Which language API's, as even the court (or the article author, I'm unclear) acknowledges, generally are not.