Similarly, asserting a court erred in a spectacularly ridiculous way is not an argument.
Note that before 1989, rules in USA were quite different. Instead of: everything is IP, almost forever - explicit copyright registration was required for protection of works.
While object code was ruled as copyrightable for pretty obvious reasons, initial rulings seems quite consistent with law at the time. Current 100+ year copyright terms might seem similarly ridiculous to copyrights founders.
Yes, it is an argument. It is not evidence, it may not be compelling argument for you, but it’s unquestionably an argument.
I refuse to accept that courts deemed compiled code to not be a creative work or intellectual property. Remember—a lot of early computer code was written in assembler...
So you refuse to accept the fact, for which there is evidence[1], that in given time and place, courts ruled object code not to be copyrightable, and furthermore it was not a solitary ruling and it was consistent with the rules of law at the time, so you call the ruling spectacularly ridiculous.
You may call it an argument. I may then argue by refusing to accept it.
It looks like object code became copyrightable in the US in 1983 through a few court cases:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18ba/427b7142a61534006f4fda...
Don't know about other countries.