[danShumway]

This is objectively, very definitively false.

> You don't explicitly copy code

Google didn't copy code. Even if you believe that APIs are copyrightable, Google's clean-room implementation hasn't been part of the case for years. It's just about the API now.

If you want to make an argument that APIs are copyrightable, fine, make that argument. Make the argument that Google is infringing on Oracles API. But if you're trying to accuse Google of copying code, you're wrong. You're conflating two ideas that are not related.

> It's black and white but people's blind hate for Oracle leads them down an argument or view point the courts have already denied and are now ignoring.

If this was actually as black and white as you say, the Supreme court wouldn't have agreed to hear it, they would have just allowed the lower court decision to stand. Unless you believe that Ruth Bader Ginsburg blindly hates Oracle for some reason?

[pgsbathhouse]

>Google didn't copy code.

Yes they did.

[danShumway]

No, they didn't. If you're referring to the infamous 9 lines of code:

  private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
     if (fromIndex > toIndex)
          throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
               ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
     if (fromIndex < 0) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
     if (toIndex > arrayLen) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
  }

that was removed in Android 4.0 and is no longer being litigated as part of the case. Google is not being sued for stealing code -- Oracle agreed way back in 2012 not to pursue statuary damages for those lines.

The appeal courts reversal of Alsups decision in 2014 was on the basis of copying the API. They wrote "that the overall structure of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and resembles a taxonomy"[0].

You're conflating two separate issues, copying implementation code vs copying an API -- copying the implementation was resolved in 2012. Copying the API is still being litigated. If you have a docket or ruling or source that says otherwise, then of course feel free to list it.

Or if you want to make the argument that declarative headers for an API are technically code, then... OK, whatever, fine. But it's still wildly deceptive to conflate declarative code and implementation code without mentioning that the law has treated them separately for decades. You're making it sound to a normal reader like Google wholesale lifted implementation logic from Java, which is just not what happened.

[0]: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140509135

[pgsbathhouse]

>copying implementation code vs copying an API

You said code. Not implementation code.