I am most certainly not. I concede that I am not clear on how much this serves as a precedent if at all, but that has little or no bearing on what I've said on the case.
> From this and your post below, this appears to be a distinction you have made up (to appeal to the audience here? I have no clue). "Structure, sequence and organization" are certainly aspects of web APIs that could be copyrightable under the Federal Circuit's ruling.
You can apply "structure, sequence and organization" to anything you like, but if you want it to be copyrighted, your work must be fixed. If it is not fixed -- as in the case of web "APIs" -- it cannot be copyrighted no matter what other properties it may have. If there is a piece of text long enough to be considered "a work" that must be replicated verbatim (or through some copyright-preserving transformation) for you to implement my web API, then that could be copyrighted.
The problem is that even if you have a fixed media form you may not be eligible to copyright (which is where structure, sequence etc. applies).
> and the compatibility argument is not with existing JVMs but with existing Java source code.
Android is not compatible with Java sources.
> I would suggest other readers to take a look at the actual four factors of fair use in the US, as your summary is a poor one. One good source
That is indeed a much better summary of fair use than my poor attempt. Nevertheless, it has no bearing on my point, which is that the result of this lawsuit has little to no effect on any other players.