[shakna]

> The Supreme Court did hold that the 11,500 lines of API code copied verbatim constituted fair use.

Yes, because it was _transformative_, in a clear way. Because an API is only an interface. Which makes that part of that decision largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

> Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different compu-ting environment without discarding a portion of a familiar program-ming language. Google’s purpose was to create a different task-related system for a different computing environment (smartphones) and tocreate a platform—the Android platform—that would help achieve and popularize that objective.

> If I recall correctly, the nine line question wasn't decided by the supreme court, but the API question was.

It was already decided earlier, and Google did not contest it, choosing instead to negotiate a zero payment settlement with Oracle over the rangeCheck function. There was no need for the Supreme Court to hear it.

[AaronFriel]

A $0 settlement means there is no binding precedent and signals to me that Oracle's attorneys felt they didn't have a strong argument and a potential for more.

If they felt the nine line function made Google's entire library an unlicensed derivative work, they would have pressed their case.

[shakna]

> A $0 settlement means there is no binding precedent and signals to me that Oracle's attorneys felt they didn't have a strong argument and a potential for more.

That's not the case. It wasn't an out-of-court-settlement, but an agreement about the damages being sought, the court had already found it to be infringing, and that was part of the ruling.

But none of that changes that 9-lines is substantial enough to be infringing. It isn't necessary to be a large body of work.

> If they felt the nine line function made Google's entire library an unlicensed derivative work, they would have pressed their case.

No... It means the rangeCheck function was infringing. The implication you seem to have inferred here wouldn't be inferred by any kind of plagiarism case.

[AaronFriel]

I think we agree then, and appreciate the correction on the lower court settlement.

If Copilot is infringing, I suspect it's correctable (by GitHub) by adding a bloom filter or something like it to filter out verbatim snippets of GPL or other copyleft code. (And this actually sounds like something corporate users would want even if it was entirely fair use because of their intense aversion to the GPL, anyhow.)

[shakna]

It may be correctable... It doesn't change that Copilot is probably infringing today, which may mean that damages against GitHub may be sought.