If the very similar percussion instruments, rhythm, and staccato bassline is all there is to the song, then I could see how the court would be right, but a song is more than just that--it's also chord progression, harmonic structure, melodic contour, lyrics, singing style, mixing/mastering, etc. So if we're considering all the elements that makes up a finished recording, I have to say I think the court made the wrong decision.
If the percussion, rhythm, and style of bassline was all it took to determine if a lawsuit is lost or won, then all the four-chord rock/blues/pops songs with drums, guitar, bass, keyboard, and playing the same chord progressions with the same simple drum beat with bass notes doubling the kick drum would be having a copyright infringement Armageddon right now. Same with all the four-on-the-floor club tracks, reggae, minimal techno, and god knows what else out there.
On a related note, anyone who's actually a competent composer will know how easy it is to write very similar music as existing music even if you've never heard the existing versions. The way music theory works (whether you have learned it or are composing by ear only), follows a very distinct set of natural inclinations dictated by how we process sound frequencies and what is aesthetically satisfying to our brain (such as preferring harmonic sounds over dissonant sounds). If you hum an original melody in front of a large audience and don't finish the last few notes and then asked the audience to finish it for you, you'll hear how the audience will naturally end the melodic contour according to our natural inclinations, and most of them will hum the same ending notes, even though they've never heard the melody or discussed it among themselves. That is how our brain works--we have biological inclinations for specific melodic progressions using specific intervals on specific beats. Add to that there are only so many possible notes on a typical scale, and have to fit in the context of the harmony of the chord structure, you're not left with many choices. To make it worse, the longer civilization has been around, the more of those possibilities are used up, especially with the explosion of the information age and how computer technology has leveled the playing field, where even enthusiastic high schoolers can put together quality music productions in their bedrooms using laptops and tablets. That is why is so easy to find songs that sound extremely similar even if the composers didn't know each other or have heard each others' work.
Anyway, I think this kind of litigation sets a dangerous precedent, and it reeks of a decision made by people who have no understanding of how music actually works. It's just as bad as the clueless youtube/amazon comments from customers who rant about how some book or movie "ripped off" another, when the similarities are only superficial (such as premise), while the entire thematic focus is completely different, and targeting a totally different readership/audience. By that logic, every single epic fantasy with elves and dwarves and dragons are total ripoffs of Tolkien, and every single story that involves humanoid robots with self-awareness is ripping off Asimov, regardless of the actual thematic exploration and plot and characters.
I remember when The Hunger Game first came out, some people foamed at the mouth calling Suzanne Collins all kind of names and claimed she ripped off Battle Royale (Japanese movie series). The two couldn't possibly be more different in the actual thematic focus and characters, with only the most basic premise being similar, yet the mob just wouldn't let up.
I do want to add though, that I think in terms of intent, the Robin Thicke camp certainly did intent to lift the percussion/rhythm/staccato bassline from the original--that much is obvious. So maybe the judgment was more about the intent, and the fact that the melody and the lyrics are not at all similar didn't matter as much.
