FB post is solely about "literal" vs "non-literal" code copying. These are words that the lawyers chose to use to communicate a complex (for non-programmers) idea to a bunch of non-programmers.
I think of "non-literal" code copying as R&D. I think the Zenimax lawyers were claiming that the R&D that Carmack did for the Occulus, while still an employee of Zenimax, was key to making Occulus valuable. And it seems like Carmack even used Zenimax IP (Doom) to develop a demo that was shown to investors, without Zenimax permission. Essentially Zenimax was used as an R&D arm of Occulus.
Pretty messy case and pretty different from Google vs Oracle IMO.
"non-literal" copying is garbage. We already have a legal term. Its called a derivative work. Which is what taking a Harry Potter book and changing the names of the characters is.
Lawyers create new terms like that to intentionally make it difficult to apply previous case law to the case at hand. Both for the opposing lawyers and any judges on appeal.
You have that backwards. Taking the Harry Potter text and copying large portions of it, even if the names are changed, would be literal copying. Writing a book that borrows the story, characters, and relationships between the characters from Harry Potter, but written in your own words using new character names, would be non-literal copying. A derivative work, on the other hand, would be taking Harry Potter and making something new from it, such as writing a novel about a new adventure involving Harry and his friends, or adapting Harry Potter to a new medium like a VR game.
I think of "non-literal" code copying as R&D. I think the Zenimax lawyers were claiming that the R&D that Carmack did for the Occulus, while still an employee of Zenimax, was key to making Occulus valuable. And it seems like Carmack even used Zenimax IP (Doom) to develop a demo that was shown to investors, without Zenimax permission. Essentially Zenimax was used as an R&D arm of Occulus.
Pretty messy case and pretty different from Google vs Oracle IMO.