Re: "Inexplicable" downvotes ...
This isn't an area where disagreement should exist. That Google chose to copy + paste literal code files rather than implement-by-spec is an accepted matter of fact by all parties. It is also relevant to the case, because one of the tests for fair use is the "purpose" and the "character" of the work. The fact that Google chose to copy the literal code rather than write it themselves was of material interest to the case; in the opinion of Oracle it further demonstrated that the key purpose of the work to be a byte-for-byte replica of the existing JDK as much as possible rather than deliver something new or innovative in nature.
The area of disagreement is whether this replication was permitted as fair use, not that the replication happened or how it was done. The byte-for-byte replica argument put forward by Oracle would lead one to conclude that the work was derivative rather than transformative; up until this ruling they'd have been right.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
