None of this applies to programming, which bears only the most tenuous of relationships to anything most people will learn or use in their lives.
What is harder to grasp is that programming is an intersection of math with cooking. And cookbook recipes are copyrightable, while math is not.
And so the burden lies on the lawyer to describe the relationship between an algorithm and the math behind it. That isn't necessarily hard, but requires creativity and time, plus you have to take into account the short attention span of most people, so you've got to pick your battles. And I guess Google's lawyer did a bad job here.
Are you sure about that?
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
The parts which make it a recipe are not copyrightable. That is analogous to comments in source code, I think...
That's what the lawyers are there for: to present the evidence and make the case (based on the testimony of experts) to a jury who doesn't get it.
I think there are arguments to be made in support of changing how we use juries in the courts, but this isn't one of them. I mean, this argument applies to just about every case that uses a jury, and it's simply not feasible to expect that jurors be knowledgeable in all the areas that a given case touches upon.