Google wasn't interested in interoperability. A big part of why they allegedly walked away from Java licensing was Oracle wanted Android to actually run Java apps, and Google wanted to basically fork off, but just benefit from the developer community around the Java language.

Can't you use many Java libraries on Android? Interoperable doesn't mean "exactly the same".

There were a number of Java standard library incompatibilities that various libraries have had to adapt to, until they switched the library implementation to OpenJDK.

Interoperability is not limited to executable-interop: it includes developer knowledge, libraries and tooling - which are exactly the reasons Google chose to use Java (the language). Dalvik checked all those boxes, without being bytecode-compatible with the JVM

Because Oracle implemented the S3 API in order to be compatible with Amazon, while Google didn't implement the Java API in order for Android apps to be compatible with server-side Java code.

Both reimplement for compatibility at some level in the toolchain, why fair use analysis would privilege one level of interoperability over another is purely speculative; arguably, the kind of user-interoperability Oracle does is more of an assault on the market for what is reimplemented (that's the whole purpose of Oracle doing it) than what Google is doing, and that's a factor that weighs against fair use.

It is important to realize that since APIs have never been viewed as copyrightable previously, we also, if Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, will have zero case law that is directly on point for any API reimplementation being fair use. Speculating on the law that will develop in that area is fun, but almost by definition not strongly grounded.