> Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters of these arguments.

I mostly agree with you, but let's give credit where credit is due. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from TFA:

> "[...] since 1992, [courts have said] the application-programming interface, of which the declaring code is a part, is not copyrightable. Implementing codes are. On that understanding, industries have built up around applications that know they can copy only what's necessary to run on the application, but they have to change everything else. That's what Google did here. That's why they took less than 1 percent of the Java code... Everybody knows that APIs, declaring codes, are not copyrightable. Implementing codes are. So please explain to me why we should now upend what the industry has viewed as the copyrightable elements, and has declared that some are methods of operation, and some are expressions. "