[fauigerzigerk]

Oracle claims to be in compliance with the license. In my opinion, that's all they need to do in order to completely separate the two cases and make it clear that they are not relying on a fair use defense. It doesn't matter whether or not they are eventually found to be in breach of Amazon's license.

Also, the potential damages in these two cases are presumably very different. Google built an entire industry on top of Android whilst Oracle is limping along with a me-too cloud offering, some tiny part of which uses Amazon's API. So I think Oracle would gladly take the risk of losing that case if they can win the other one.

[voxic11]

But the license is for an SDK that talks to the API not the API itself which is what they reimplemented. It's like if Google claimed that since Oracle once released an Apache licenced Java application that means they can reimplement any Java APIs that application used.

[fauigerzigerk]

My point is that Oracle doesn't have to be right in their potential dispute with Amazon. All they have to do is use a defense that does not rely on denying copyrightability of APIs or on fair use. And that's what they are doing by referring to the SDK license.