Yep. This case was an existential threat to multitudes of industries and the assumptions they were built on.
The weird thing is it would of hurt Oracle as much as anyone. I have no clue how anyone w/any technical merit didn't understand that this was a footgun of the largest possible magnitude for them.
I had the opportunity once to talk to an IP lawyer for Oracle and brought this up. I specifically brought up the S3 compatibility of their cloud storage among other instances.
His reply was “without admitting anything specific, how do you know we haven’t purchased private licenses for anything you just mentioned?”
Plenty of good, cheap DACs built in China (e.g. Topping) have an HDMI-shaped plug (IIS) that supports PCM-over-not-HDMI which happens to be compatible with HDMI sources, but don't dare mention HDMI because they don't want to pull in an interlocking, price-gouging nonsense from the US entertainment industry.
So you don't quite need a license for the shape of the plug, but you do need to pretend it's not something that it is.
In my own mind, when CentOS died Oracle was saying you should move to "Oracle Unbreakable Linux"... which is a downstream clone of RHEL, just like CentOS was. Just one example of the hypocrisy.
It is uncontested that Oracle cloning RHEL is allowed by the license that RHEL is released under. They don't need a fair use ruling from the Supreme Court because they literally have a license that allows exactly what they did. The same could not be said for Google's actions in this case.
