For those who are not categorically opposed to the idea of copyright (I am not), this case illustrates both the good and the bad of the current system.

Copyright when properly applied ultimately protects creative forms of expression (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3479959). It does so by giving the originator of a creative work (the "author") a monopoly on it for a limited time, the effect of which is to allow that person to control who can copy it, alter it, etc. Because the goal is to protect creativity, copyright cannot legitimately be used to give anyone a monopoly over ideas themselves (such as the idea of transposing pi to musical notes), or over expressions of ideas that are indistinguishable from the underlying ideas themselves, or over standard or stock elements (e.g., stock character types in plays), or over facts. Even if a work itself is properly copyrighted, that protection extends only to the elements of that work that are sufficiently original as to be protectible and not to other elements. Thus, if someone claims infringement and the only concrete similarities between two works relate to elements not protected by copyright (e.g., facts or ideas), there can be no infringement. Applying these rules here, a judge well-versed in copyright law held that pi is a non-copyrightable fact, the transcription of pi to music is a non-copyrightable idea, the resulting pattern of notes is an expression that merges with the non-copyrightable idea of transcribing pi to music, and the remaining elements of similarity in the two works are so incidental and scattered that there is no way it can be said that the works are substantially similar - hence, no infringement can be found even if the works might be found to sound similar in certain ways. In focusing strongly on the underlying principle of what copyright is all about (to protect original forms of creative expression), the judge held that the "Pi Symphony" creator, though possibly holding a valid copyright on his overall work, was entitled to protect that work against only virtually identical copying because any broader form of legal protection would allow that creator to overreach and to claim what would amount essentially to a monopoly over the very concept of transposing pi to music. This is what older generations would have called a "felicitous result" - one that allows creative work to be legally protected within the strict limits justified by the purpose of the copyright law and no more. The result comports with both law and common sense and is well-articulated by this judge in a solid opinion. That is the good part.

The bad part is that an Oregon resident had to fight a federal lawsuit, first in the distant forum of Nebraska in order to challenge jurisdiction and venue, and then through what was undoubtedly a set of motions in Oregon that had to cost at least tens of thousands of dollars. For big companies, maybe this is reasonable but, for an average person trying to defend against this sort of attack, the process itself becomes obnoxious. This is a big reason that IP bullying can be so easily practiced and why so many have to cave to it - even if they are in the right. In a digital age, such bullying has become even more obnoxious, driving many to the point of despising copyright altogether in spite of its historic purposes and merits.