I should point out that in the Ninth Circuit, there's already plenty of strong, citeable precedent in favor of fair use for the purpose of interoperability; separate from the purpose of programmer convenience that the Supreme Court endorsed. It's my opinion that programmer convenience is strictly wider than interoperability. The only reason why SCOTUS needed to rule this way is:
1. Google did not copy Java APIs strictly for the purpose of interoperability (they specifically did not want interoperability with other Java environments).
2. Ninth Circuit court precedent does not apply in the Federal Circuit, which is the only reason why Oracle even had a leg to stand on.
Had Oracle not had a patent claim in this lawsuit, it would have wound up in the Ninth Circuit, we would have gotten another respectable decision limiting software copyright from that court, and the only thing SCOTUS would have had to have done would have been to deny cert to Oracle after they lost. It's entirely due to the Federal Circuit not respecting basic concepts of how software works and ruling on something that shouldn't have been in their jurisdiction that we got here.
1. Google did not copy Java APIs strictly for the purpose of interoperability (they specifically did not want interoperability with other Java environments).
2. Ninth Circuit court precedent does not apply in the Federal Circuit, which is the only reason why Oracle even had a leg to stand on.
Had Oracle not had a patent claim in this lawsuit, it would have wound up in the Ninth Circuit, we would have gotten another respectable decision limiting software copyright from that court, and the only thing SCOTUS would have had to have done would have been to deny cert to Oracle after they lost. It's entirely due to the Federal Circuit not respecting basic concepts of how software works and ruling on something that shouldn't have been in their jurisdiction that we got here.