> Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered[...]
It's now abundantly clear that this argument was put before someone who is not familiar with the difficulty inherent in divining the intent of original source code, much less source that has been reverse engineered off the opcodes.
So, they are deliberately misleading the judges. I really would like that to be recognized as "lying under oath" (or is there no oath attached to such briefs?).
My comment was meant at least slightly tongue-in-cheek. I've seen some people (usually pretty deep compiler experts) who were able to do a remarkable job of reconstructing original source from object code. There obviously is brilliantly written source code out there that is a downright pleasure to read.
In general we don't enact legislation entirely against the worst cases, for good reason.
It's now abundantly clear that this argument was put before someone who is not familiar with the difficulty inherent in divining the intent of original source code, much less source that has been reverse engineered off the opcodes.