Copyright has a creativity requirement. I can easily see a court ruling that 0x51234 bit 5 is not creative whereas SetBrickMode(true) has a spark of creativity in that it could have been named multiple things.

Without endorsement, there is definitely a line between text in which one can be "creative" and numbers in copyright law as written.

The problem here isn't the line between creative and non-creative, the problem here is the introduction of copyright, a concept created for expressive works, into a field that consists of functional works. It should not be a surprise to anyone, not even lawyers, that this isn't going to "just work". The surprise to me is that it has taken this long for this foundational clash to start emerging at a big scale.

The number sequence to word differentiation you make is specious - you may not consider it creative but there's a creative spark in choice of a number, or choice of a location in memory that leads to choice of a number, etc., as you later intimate that creativity is technically lead.

The choice of call name in an API are arbitrary, the reuse of those names to interface with that API is not a creative copy it's a technical requirement.

If I make a toothed belt to fit a pair of gears, that's not an artistic expression no matter the the tooth pitch is an exact duplicate of that on the gears. If the gear is purple and orange spots, in a distinctive pattern, and I make my belt the same pattern then that's a copyright issue.

If the API calls were like "thisIsTheSummerOfOurDiscoTents(banana)" - such that the names are sufficient to be individual works of art, and weren't following a technical function, then perhaps you have an argument that the API is a work of literature, or otherwise an artistic creation.

It just sounds like a wrong decision was previously made and should now be overturned.

The key word in first bit of my post is "court". I think standing in front of a judge and explaining that your choice of 1,383,929,380 is "creative" is, well, something you're welcome to try.

The real key point is in the second half, though. Arguing over whether or not a particular micro-decision is "creative" is the entirely wrong track to be taking when we're discussing something that is functional, that performs some real task in a way that a movie or song simply does not. Why would we expect standards based on "creativity" to apply to that in any sensible way?

Judges aren't fools (but some can be persuaded to be!).

It's impossible for a collection of letters to be creative but for that collection of letters when represented numerically to be no longer creative. If I make up some BS for how there's a correspondence between these symbols and other symbols (1=alpha, 2=bravo, ...; or 1=sandwich, 2=wellington, ...) - then 1383() is just sandwichBiscuitAppleBiscuit(). Then it's clear the creative aspects of the program, API, or whatever, don't lie in the specific choice of tokens.

Would a judge agree that providing a dictionary/key that says an arbitrary name for each number (easy to do programmatically) makes a program creative that otherwise wouldn't be. It's clearly ridiculous. Not least because it would mean that duplicating a work that was compressed, or represented in binary, would then no longer be a tort, because apparently numerical representation would rule out a work from being creative.

The thing is, any program that calls "SetBrickMode()" HAS to use that name. Nobody has ever claimed programs require the consent of the API creator under copyright law to use the API. EVER prior to this. And then once a bunch of software is created using the API (presumably without need of the copyright holder) someone else doing an alternative implementation for that software to run on has no choice but to use the same naming convention for those programs to run.

You can choose different interrupt numbers as well.

This line of 'concern' has been running through the courts since the mid 80s. This isn't anything new. The cases themselves discuss the jurisprudence on either side, as well as the tests used to determine the magnitude of creativity and similarity as between software products.

openFileWithName is a mnemonic that a software developer uses and which a machine translates into a literal location at compile time.