So is "the sky falling"?
I'd suggest if you thought so you at least skim the ruling as a lesson. If you read a summary of any complex topic that someone with severe A.D.D. can easily read, then by necessity you're getting a very skewed view of the issue. Information theory tells you so. The question of "can a public API" be covered by copyright protection is the exact same open question after this decision as it was the day Google and Oracle step into trial. The only change is the court overruled a district court decision. From the ruling, page 42:
In other words, the court concluded that, although the SSO (Roquen: structure, sequence and operation) is expressive, it is not copyrightable because it is also functional. The problem with the district court’s approach is that computer programs are by definition functional—they are all designed to accomplish some task. Indeed, the statutory definition of “computer program” acknowledges that they function “to bring about a certain result.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining a “computer program” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result”). If we were to accept the district court’s suggestion that a computer program is uncopyrightable simply because it “carr[ies] out pre-assigned functions,” no computer program is protectable. That result contradicts Congress’s express intent to provide copyright protection to computer programs, as well as binding Ninth Circuit case law finding computer programs copyrightable, despite their utilitarian or functional purpose.
Now an A.D.D. person can read my chosen snippet...and what I'm presenting could be skewed. If you care about something..check for yourself.
