Mr. Orlowski seems to misunderstand fair use
IANAL, but AFAIK, neither is Mr. Orlowski. I thought I'd look a few things up -- mostly Wikipedia, and therefore, not the word of God, but relevant just the same, I believe.
1. Orlowski states "Fair use is not a right, it's an affirmative defense." According to the Wikipedia Fair Use page, "the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law." The parties agreed that ninth-circuit law applies, so this interpretation applies. (https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf, p.15.)
2. Back to Wikipedia: "The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair. ¶Using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes the third factor less favorable to the defendant.... the 'substantiality' of the portion used is considered in addition to the amount used." I don't know what fraction of the source code the 11K copied lines subsumes; not much, I would guess, though this is not the only consideration, as noted. But if all it does is call other code which Google themselves wrote, as we would expect in API interface code, the courts would likely consider this insubstantial, and rule in Google's favor. I do recall a lawyer's opinion being relayed to me to the effect that if the code is so simple that there is basically only one simple way it makes sense to do write it, copying it would be fair use. Admittedly, the example in question was something as trivial as "int add(int x, int y) { return x +y; }". But if the interface code just contained a little logic that terminated in calling functions (re)written by Google, presumably the same rule would applyl.