That's literally what this case is about, the tag names on functions. The appeals court already threw out one de mininis argument.

The point is that file formats are qualitatively different than APIs. If I have a doc file that is:

<doc>

  <author>

.....

Then in my code I have a parse method:

Def parse_doc(xml)

self.Owner = Person.new(xml[:author])

....

End

And a corresponding write method.

My code is original and contains nothing written by whoever created the file format beyond short and simple tag names. It's much different than copying a class structure and method signatures.

Other than the tags, the Harmony code was completely original too, with the exception of the nine line range check code that was the only literal copying Oracle could find.

Here is the only piece of code Oracle accuses Google of copying, out of slightly under one million lines of code:

  private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
       if (fromIndex > toIndex)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
                 ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
       if (fromIndex < 0) 
            throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
       if (toIndex > arrayLen) 
            throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
  }

Note that of course "rangeCheck", "arrayLen", "fromIndex" and "toIndex" are part of the function signature, as is "ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException" and "IllegalArgumentException".