The court ruled in favor of fair use on the second factor. This may go the wrong way lol.
Myers ’22 — Gary, Earl F. Nelson Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property; (2022; “Muddy W Muddy Waters: F aters: Fair Use Implications of Google LL air Use Implications of Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.”; 19 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 155 (2022).; Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property; https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip; ror)
In short, the court noted, when “the copying is verbatim, for an identical function and purpose, and there are no changes to the expressive content or message, a mere change in format (e.g., from desktop and laptop computers to smartphones and tablets) is insufficient as a matter of law to qualify as a transformative use.”35
Briefly addressing the conflicting views of the parties on whether Google acted in bad faith, the court noted that Oracle claimed that Google intentionally copied and knew it needed a license, while Google argued that it complied with industry custom and believed that it could copy the declaring code and SSO as long as it wrote its own implementing code. Concluding its analysis of the first fair use factor, the court held “that, even assuming the jury was unpersuaded that Google acted in bad faith, the highly commercial and non-transformative nature of the use strongly support the conclusion that the first factor weighs against a finding of fairuse.”36
Turning to the second factor—the nature of the copyrighted work—the court stated: “Although it is clear that the 37 API packages at issue involved some level of creativity—and no reasonable juror could disagree with that conclusion—reasonable jurors could have concluded that functional considerations were both substantial and important. Based on that assumed factual finding, we conclude that factor two favors a finding of fair use.”37