That is an extremely narrow viewpoint. Companies rarely sell or provide their source code. This ruling would seem to open the door to pulling source code for anything, even delivered products. Why? Because the source code - generally just text files on a computer - is rarely if ever delivered. Instead, source code is typically processed through a program called a compiler where it is turned into a stream of instructions for the particular computer it will be running on. (eg. windows based PC, or Mac OS/X PC, Android device, etc.) Source isn't delivered, executable binaries are delivered.
If you don't believe that reasoning, if you take the (reasonable) view that the source is well, the source of the delivered product... Then why this decision? Are not tools that enable the development, compilation, and delivery of the binaries, the delivered product, also protected? This is a tough spot here. Where do you draw the line on delivered/licensed/sold product and that which brings it to market?
I think this s an excellent decision, regardless of how the law interfaces with the software industry. Federal commerce power is limited. Perhaps you comments are valid, but this is an issue that should be addressed to state law, not federal. The less federal power the better.