"Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE."
Well that nukes it. The courts took how long to identify this precedented principle? It seems like the rest of the opinion is just there to ward off more of this tomfoolery for people that don't get it.
The lower courts have been frankly awful about refusing to acknowledge the rulings that SCOTUS has been handing down about software and technology in general. For example Alice Corp v CLS Bank International basically put an end to the validity of "[generic idea or business method], but on a computer" patents and the lower courts have basically said "haha ok great but we're not doing it", continuing to rule on "on a computer" patents as if they were valid, and with the patent office continuing to issue such patents.
Obviously this is copyright vs patent law but it goes to establish that there's been a big problem with the lower courts on "computer laws". It's a nexus of the problem with jurisdiction-shopping (finding a lower court that wants to keep lots of cases coming in and is willing to pump out questionable decisions to do so) and just the legal system being about 30 years behind the times in general in terms of understanding computers and how innovative a particular idea may be.
Well that nukes it. The courts took how long to identify this precedented principle? It seems like the rest of the opinion is just there to ward off more of this tomfoolery for people that don't get it.