>The judgement is setting a precedent in defining an API by its routes and not by what or how it processes data.

More generally, the ruling is bad because patents are supposed to be for an implementation, not an interface. For how you accomplished something, not the accomplishment. For a combustion engine, not "being able to get into a box and exiting at your destination in a short time".

Every outrageous parent grant seems to have this attribute: the problem with one-click is how the patent covered "everything that accomplishes one-click", not "our particular solution for getting one-click to happen".

Here, they're patenting the accomplishment of "making this call get this result", not "how we managed to get that response to that call".