I'm not sure why it's claimed they skirted the question... If I understand correctly, the Court answered the question when they issued bench instructions that APIs were to be considered copyrightable.
Is the difference that there's no SCOTUS precedent on the issue because it wasn't addressed in this case? Because (IANAL but) I'd assume the bench direction is itself precedent... In that if another circuit court tried to run a case as if the question was in the open, the Court would again ruler-slap them and say "No, assume APIs are copyrightable, plain language of the law."
They did not say that APIs were copyrightable, they said that if "we assume, for argument's sake, that [APIs are] copyrightable, [...] the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use".
From page 1 of the opinion, i.e. the actual ruling, which follows the "syllabus" in the pdf. The syllabus is basically just a summary. It's page 5 of the pdf.
I see; the difference is SCOTUS vs. circuit court of appeals precedent. I was referring to the decision of May 9, 2014 that overrulled the Alsup court assertion that APIs are not subject to copyright. But that decision was not from SCOTUS but from the appeals court for the circuit.
Current status, if I understand correctly, is that SCOTUS has not weighed in on whether APIs may be subject to copyright, and precedent in (Edit: Ninth Circuit) should be that they are to be considered copyrightable (and, I suppose, "no precedent in this circuit or from the Supreme Court" in all other circuits).
I don't think federal circuit rulings on non patent matter are binding precedent anywhere? I could be wrong about that. I certainly doubt there binding precedent on just one federal district (and not either all the district courts in the relevant circuit, or all district courts period).
Is the difference that there's no SCOTUS precedent on the issue because it wasn't addressed in this case? Because (IANAL but) I'd assume the bench direction is itself precedent... In that if another circuit court tried to run a case as if the question was in the open, the Court would again ruler-slap them and say "No, assume APIs are copyrightable, plain language of the law."