The judge points out that “[t]he term API is slippery”. He refuses to use the term “API” on its own for anything other than “the abstract concept of an application programming interface”. For the sake of greater precision, the judge consistently refers to “API documentation” and “API implementations” when discussing material that was allegedly infringed.
There are many occasions to lament the lack of technical understanding that shines through some legal discussions. But this is a case in which the judge displays a level of precision that we, in the industry, often fail to reach.