Google is making this case, we'll see if the judges buy it. Just because porting Java apps to Android is easier because Google copied the API doesn't suddenly absolve them when it's Google's intention that will decide this case.

> when it's Google's intention that will decide this case.

Why do you presuppose to know the legal rule that the Supreme Court will articulate in its decision? I mean, you seem to presuppose that the Court will uphold the Federal Circuit on all contested questions of law and only reconsider whether the decision on the facts is reasonable, which is...mighty presumptuous.

It's quite conceivable that Google could win on a more fundamental ground, since the question of whether the API is even protected by copyright or unprotected as a functional element (which also does not turn on Google’s intent) is a love issue in the appeal. They win on that, and the Court doesn't have to touch anything else.

Even if they do need to address the fair use question because Google loses on copyright ability, the Court a lot will turn on the standard of review and the Seventh Amendment as to whether the Court is really probing Google's intent (de novo review) or merely probing whether any reasonable jury could have concluded that the use was fair, as the actual trial jury did here, preserving the right to jury trial. I would expect the latter, the Federal Circuit seems to have gone completely off the rails invoking de novo review to overturn the jury verdict.

That seems to be what a lot of legal folks are speculating. That an 8-person court will find essentially technical legal reasons to overturn the appeal and essentially punt on making a major copyright ruling one way or the other.

A ruling overturning the CAFC on the basis that fair use is a fact issue for the jury not subject to de novo review on appeal would still be a major (though not transformative, since outside of the CAFC in this case that seems to be how it has historically been treated) copyright decision.