That's not the most accurate summary of Google v Oracle. The case has been tried twice, Google has been found in the clear twice at the district court by the jury, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has twice overturned the jury result, and the case is now at the Supreme Court awaiting a decision as to whether or not CAFC's decision is off it's rocker.

It is not usual for CAFC to hear copyright disputes; that it was appealed to CAFC instead of the 9th Circuit is because there was a patent claim at one point, and CAFC should have followed 9th Circuit precedent on the matter. Google contends that 9th Circuit precedent holds that the API is not copyrightable, which means that CAFC erred in ignoring precedent. Most software companies ultimately agree with Google here, not Oracle: it's telling that most of the amici who side with Oracle are not software companies but media publishers (e.g., MPAA, RIAA).

That link is missing a trailing period by the way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

Edit: huh? I pasted it in with the period and it gets removed. Do trailing periods get removed because it thinks it's the end of a sentence?

Anyway, this redirects to the right URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v_Oracle

Yeah, HN strips trailing periods for the reason you stated. You can normally get around that by adding a hash/pound sign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_...

> I'm not confident that nVidia'd have an easy win if they decided to sue the developer

So long as Nvidia's case doesn't get outright laughed out of court, they can throw money at their legal team until the developer goes bankrupt.

I think you could argue from the interop side which would make such a project legal in Europe. So Intel or AMD could funnel money into this via their European branches or some subsidiary?