Re: Multiple points
Thanks for the comment Paul, but just to clarify the history:
"In the previous trial the judge had some computer knowledge and ruled, quite reasonably, that blocking API re-use is against the whole of software inter-compatibility and so not the intended outcome."
It's the same Judge in both the 2012 and the 2016 trials.
The Judge's interoperability argument in 2012 was subsequently shot down on appeal in 2013/2014. They appellate hearing ruled that interop is irrelevant. (There are other laws with which you can go after interoperability, and the EU did just that in EU vs MS. But you can't use interoperability as a get-out-of-jail-free card when you've been copying without a license.)
"The currently finished trial said no, APIs are under copyright by the legal definition of this, so the trial was on point 2, and it ruled re-implementation is "fair use".
It was the 2013/14 appeal that confirmed that APIs are under copyright. Which doesn't mean APIs are very "defend-able". Look what happened when SCO tried it.
The clean room discussion applies to patent, not copyright cases.