Re: @jilocasin There is *no* IP to take advantage of.
I am replying to correct myself. I was mistaken when I wrote:
"Your reference to a 'clean room version' is misplaced in this instance. That only applies to _patents_ NOT _copyrights_, the subject of this case."
Since there is no independent invention exception to patents, the above wouldn't apply. Which makes my other comment:
"confusing such simple concepts as patents and copyrights"
That being said, your insistence that: "Google's 'clean room' version wasn't clean and that's what damns them." is irrelevant as there was no such 'clean room' Google publicly acknowledged that they based their efforts on Apache's Project Harmony, which was licensed under the Apache license making what Google did perfectly legal, insofar as source code went. The API was never covered by copyright and technically (with the exception of a rogue appellate court) still isn't.
I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.