In Oracle America v. Google, what was the District Court jury&#39;s rationale behind its &quot;fair use&quot; finding?
<p>In the case of <em>Oracle America v. Google</em>, the District Court of Northern California ruled on whether or not Google's reimplementation of 37 Java APIs constituted fair use. My question is, how - in the said jury's opinion - is Google's action "fair use"?</p>

<p><a href="https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/26/google_oracle_jury_instructions.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here are the jury instructions</a>.</p>

<p>These describe how to evaluate witness testimony, burdens of proof, and the four-factor fair use test, among other things.</p>

<p>The jury had to answer yes or no to the following question:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Has Google shown by a preponderance of the evidence that its use in Android of the declaring lines of code and their structure, sequence, and organization from Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4 and Java 2 Standard Edition Version 5.0 constitutes a "fair use" under the Copyright Act?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>They <a href="https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/26/oracle_jury_verdict.jpg" rel="nofollow">answered yes</a>. Juries do not explain their reasoning (different jurors might even have different reasonings), but the assumption is that they followed the jury instructions to arrive at this conclusion.</p>

<hr>

<p><sup>To be clear, the issue wasn't <em>reimplementation</em> of 37 Java APIs, but a more limited taking, including "the declaring
code and the structure, sequence, and organization".</sup></p>

copyright fair-use jury