Wow, enough mockery and name-calling?<p>I am actually with Oracle on this whole thing. Calling Android “fair use” is the insane argument, as legal experts have said. Fair use is a narrow exemption, not meant to apply to huge corporations and commercial products. Android is a commercial product; Google even tried to argue that! Google is not akin to a library performing a public service by making Android. Android is not Java “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” (The fact that senior people at Google seem to honestly believe that Android would have to at least be a little more of a profit center to be impeachable on copyright grounds is straight out of an HBO script.)<p>Google’s own engineers didn’t think it would be legal to copy Java and “scrub the J word” (actual quote) without licensing from Oracle. The emails are damning. They knew it wouldn’t be a “clean-room reimplementation” of the APIs, and it wasn’t. Also, the Java “API” includes the entire behavior of the standard library. Whether or not APIs are copyrightable (a gray area to be sure), I think it’s misleading to compare the Java APIs to other examples of “interfaces.” In any case, Oracle showed that portions of code were either copy-pasted or heavily “recollected,” so I say they did their job showing they have a real case. They don’t deserve to be mocked.