How do you prove that an artists "knowingly" does it? What if it was in his subconscious and he never knew that it belonged to someone else? And even if he did know, what if he claimed he didn't? Furthermore, from what the OP said, much of this silliness depends on the judge's opinion??? What about his mood? Maybe he was having a bad day? This is all way too much uncertainty to slam someone with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

And as for innovation, if artists can't "use" any familiar tunes, lyrics, melodies, and themes to write music, then there will be no new music, period. With very few exceptions, all art today is plagiarized. Eddie Van Halen admitted he was greatly influenced by Beethoven, of all composers. Does that mean that Beethoven's estate should collect millions in royalties from the success of VH2? If so, there would never have been another VH album after that. That's the kind of utter nonsense that today's copyright law is reaching for.

Too far fetched? OK, let's consider Coldplay's influences. If Satriani wins this in court, then you can be sure that a lot of other bands and artists will be lining up to sue for "damages." This could bankrupt Coldplay and put an end to the band. So who benefits from that? Well Satriani does, I suppose, but not the public.

Copyright law was created to let artists collect for a short time on their invention's uses, not for decades or even hundreds of years. This wasn't even pushed for by artists, but instead was greedily shoved down the public's throat by the record companies. Sure there are numskulls like Ulrich & Bono who wholeheartedly backed that kind of gouging, but it does nothing for new music and the people who listen to it. I know this is simplifying it a bit, but that's the gist of what I'm saying.