[gpm]

The better question is would this case mean someone already has the copyright on push, pop, enqueue, dequeue? Someone originally came up with all those APIs, and they (or the people they were working for or otherwise sold it to) would would own any copyright.

(The answer is probably no, I'm sure a half decent lawyer would manage to distinguish that from this case since it is so simple).

[monocasa]

This case has the appeals court striking down de minimus claims as well. : /

[CamperBob2]

I wonder how those idiot judges on the appeals court would feel if a bunch of programmers with Sharpies ran rampant through their law books, altering the long-established order of things with essentially no knowledge of what they were doing. It's a shame the universe doesn't provide for karmic retribution at this level.

Downvote if you like, but there's no other way to describe the absence of de minimis exceptions besides "idiocy." These judges are essentially monkeys in a machine shop.

[jimnotgym]

Perhaps they are not idiots, they are just trying to apply laws written for books and music to software. That is not their fault, they don't get to make laws, only interpret them.

I think this is another case where the law makers have been rather slow to keep up. Copyright is not really working in this era.

[zelphirkalt]

> That is not their fault, they don't get to make laws, only interpret them.

Isn't that exactly what the parent of your post called:

> These judges are essentially monkeys in a machine shop.

Blindly trying to apply an unfitting law, because those are the instructions?

[chc]

The absence of de minimis exceptions is not that important because API copyrights are a terrible idea all on their own.