Honestly, they need to put it into layman's terms. The exposed function calls of an API are meant to be implementation-blind. Let's say car-company A builds t

Honestly, they need to put it into layman's terms. The exposed function calls of an API are meant to be implementation-blind. Let's say car-company A builds the first ever car that's operated with a steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, clutch pedal, and shifter. Then, Company B comes along and - both to create a complete control system for the car AND to potentially benefit consumers who are already familiar with those controls - also uses a steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, clutch pedal, and shifter. The steering column and its inner workings are completely different. The gas pedal activates a V8 combustion engine instead of an I4. The clutch pedal triggers a dual clutch for faster shifting between gears. The brake pedal activates disc brakes instead of drum-brakes. The appeals court is, in effect, saying that Company B has violated copyright because, when faced with the same problem, they came up with a solution that looks very similar on the outside. They turn a blind eye - willingly or unwillingly - to all the new engineering that went on to improve the product and create a new expression of an automobile.