Reading the article I get a feeling that the judges don't really understand what an API is. Also, the comment > I'm concerned that under your argument, all com

Reading the article I get a feeling that the judges don't really understand what an API is. Also, the comment > I'm concerned that under your argument, all computer code is at risk of losing protection under 102(b) It seems rather incorrect in case of reimplementing an API. It's not like the underlying logic has been changed or copied it's just that the top level API has been modified to be compatible with the system being used. Or am I missing something?