tsnor :
The concept of “non-literal copying” .... is probably a necessary one. Anyone can take code and do some edits and reformat so that it looks nothing like the original.
It seems like you should have to establish that it's what he actually did.
I can see the point of proving that, to a compiler, they look exactly the same. But, copyright clearly does not cover "works like". So, you should have to prove that, at some level, it really was a copy.
To me, this smells like improper convictions using DNA evidence. Juries are impressed by these things, even when the evidence is misinterpreted to show a conclusion it really doesn't support.
The same could apply to "source code analysis". Without understanding the methodology used and how it meets the legal standard, it's really just meaningless theater used to make the testimony of the expert witness seem more credible. Not saying it doesn't meet a legal standard, but it sounds like that was never established.