This is settled law, and has been for over 100 years.
Actually it sounds like it's only settled inside your own head. I mean by that, if it is relevant, as you say -- then obviously it's not "settled" since we're getting Psycho-star, here, knocked down by the judge.
That doesn't sound too settled to me... in fact, it sounds more like it's "settled" the completely opposite way you are thinking -- namely by the actual results that the software writers are getting with their software, in terms of licenses.
I would say you're grasping at straws... :-)
That doesn't sound too settled to me.
That's because you're confusing one court's opinion with "the law".
They aren't the same thing.
Unfortunately, some courts ignore law with which they disagree. This will hopefully lead to the decision being overturned by a higher court, but sometimes it just leads to injustice.
I have provided links to the actual statute and the decisions of courts dating back before 1900, which each agree with my take on the matter.
Vernor v Autodesk is another one.
Novell v CPU Distrib (2000) - Looking for the decision online...
The bottom line is that this court is willingly letting Apple legislate via court action, as many have allowed Microsoft to do before.