First, perhaps you should learn a little bit about
how judging is done. Judges don't just 'allow' and 'disallow' stuff; well, at least that is not what they are supposed to be doing and the appeals system, essential for
due process, is pretty good at correcting those who do that. Justice Cardozo wrote a great short book about it:
The Nature Of The Judicial Process.
My experience would say otherwise. I've spent plenty of time in both federal and state court. I've spent years in a trial, been a foreman on a jury, been an expert witness, and I've done my time in 30b6 depositions.
The entire discovery process is about what is allowed and what is not allowed during trial. The judge determines the rules of the game way before in court proceedings begin. I'm still willing to learn more and will try make time for the reading you suggest.
Second, 'Bitcoin', and resulting 'bitcoins', are really just a math equation and results of that equation. Obviously, neither the equation '2+2=4' nor '4' are not copyrightable. However, if you use a particular font, color, etc. and fix it in a medium then you may be able to have a copyright attach to that particular work. Copyright is a very abstract area of law in that sense. Consequently, copyrighting the math equation that is Bitcoin is, almost without a doubt, going to fail just like you would fail with trying to copyright the general formula '2+2=4'.
I'm sure I could beat a summary judgement motion that Bitcoins are just math during discovery. And I'm not even a lawyer. Think MP3 compression or RSA public key encryption. Both are tools that allow for expression.
Copyright is interesting to me exactly because it's abstract. Using an intellectual property argument gets Bitcoins a fast track to being a general intangible under the Uniform Commercial Code.