Thomson-Reuters vs. George Mason, aka EndNote vs. Zotero

Thomson-Reuters is suing George Mason University for $10M in damages, alleging that GMU reverse engineered EndNote in order to enable file conversions for migration to Zotero. Here is the complaint (from courthousenews.com). The slashdot thread includes some thoughtful comments and links from librarians and technologists. The prevailing view seems to be that this is an intimidating nuisance lawsuit, and that the Zotero project didn't reverse engineer anything. For example, Peter Murray (OhioLINK) writes:

This could be an interesting lawsuit to follow. The Zotero enhancement ticket⁷ has a discussion about the legality of using the EndNote Styles collection⁹ or EndNote styles posted^L17 on^L18other^L19 sites^L20. The EndNote software itself makes it possible to create and export the EndNote Style .ens files, so many EndNote Style files are the result of the work of entities other than Thomson Reuters. Presumably the person that created the ENS-to-CSL translator for Zotero did not have a copy of the EndNote software and so was not bound by the EndNote license agreement. Does the fact that the ENS files were published on open websites where they could be accessed without using EndNote itself make a difference?