The Oracle v. Google copyright case hinged on two things. The first was about the copyrightability of APIs (in legal jargon, "structure, sequence and organizati

The Oracle v. Google copyright case hinged on two things. The first was about the copyrightability of APIs (in legal jargon, "structure, sequence and organization"). The second was a function called rangeCheck, which was: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex < 0) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex); if (toIndex > arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } The function is obviously trivial, is something which could be pretty easily recalled exactly from memory, and could be easily recreated by accident; given the constraints on what it's supposed to do, there aren't many degrees of freedom. At the district court level, Judge Alsup ruled that copying of this function was "de minimis". At the Federal Circuit level, Justices O'Malley, Plager and Taranto overturned this part of the district court ruling (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/Oracle_America_Inc._v._Google_Inc./Order-05-09-14/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federa...). On the issue of "structure, sequence, and organization", Google copied the class and method names from Java, so that their reimplementation of Java, Dalvik, would be interoperable with existing Java programs and Java programmers' habits. Judge Alsup ruled that is a "command structure, a system or method of operation" and not copyrightable 17 USC 102(b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102) (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf). This, too, was overturned by the district court. There is a fairly key difference here between Judge Alsup and the District judges. Part-way through the trial, Alsup revealed that he has actually programmed; that he understood what was going on, and would not be easily fooled. At the time, this being revealed was a dramatic event. The District judges, however, hold no such distinction. It is no surprise, then, that it was them, and not Alsup, who made a ruling that to actual programmers is prima facie unreasonable and dangerous. They are outsiders. If you read their opinion (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/ORACLE_AMERICA_INC._v._GOOGLE_INC./Order-05-09-14/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federa...) you can see little errors in terminology creep in to reveal their lack of background and understanding. And, lacking that understanding, I don't see how they can be seen as having moral authority. They only have legal authority, and the ability to do damage with it.