The Google/Oracle decision was bad for copyright and bad for software

Not being able to protect an API as a whole is bad. What is an API if not a blue-print and a structural representation of the underlying Software. Wasn't it Fred Brooks who said something like, "show me your data structures and I can tell you what your program does, show me your code and I cannot".

Reimplementing an API is like recreating Mona Lisa by painting by numbers. It requires much less effort as the creative thinking and ideas are already laid out for you.

The ruling in this lawsuit is also worrisome for those that create open-source software and rely on the GPL to protect their code and keep it open.

> With the law as it stands, though, copyright is the best tool we have. In this particular field, it's already far weaker than it should be—it offers borderline irrelevant protection (even as it lasts far too long) that fails to reflect the things that make software a creative, challenging, expressive endeavor.

We have patents, and those desperately need knocked down a peg. In a world where companies exist solely to sue people for implementing shopping carts on web sites, I celebrate this win for fair use.