The case goes into discussing this directly, indicating that Google's cleanroom efforts give it evidence that it proceeded in good faith, but good faith alone does not intrinsically absolve you of admitted copying (which is an infringement) that's found elsewhere.
Now if you did an ACTUAL cleanroom and didn't take chunks that you thought were trivial, the argument to demonstrate infringement in the first place would need to be localized on the SSO level, where single-option design choices would again be exempted through the doctrine of merger, and we'd have a much different set of considerations.
As per the jury award to Oracle, you'll be happy to know they're going back to first instance to have another trial to determine the quantum. Maybe Oracle will get $1 again despite winning due precisely to the mitigating factors you've raised. Who knows. This case wasn't about that. It was about fair use.
There are two things in play here and they are NOT the same. The one the whole world cares about is weather APIs are copyrightable. Weather Google is guilty of copying part of Oracles implementation of the code behind the API is not relevant to API copyrightability. If you can't see the distinction you don't understand software or the real core of the case and should stop trolling. If you do see the distinction, why do you keep insisting on conflating the two?
Whether or not the supreme court agrees with the IPRs affirmed in this series of cases is another question entirely, but until that comes down, nothing has really changed.
Happy reading.
It's hard to overstate how difficult it is to separate what you want the law to be from what it is. This is why people do so badly at representing themselves, and even lawyers have this problem.
Oh well. I hope some people found it useful.
If this holds up, every programming language that was not originally produced under a suitable open source license will need to be dropped because all software written in those languages will be infringing an API copyright.