Did you read the article? It explains this in detail. A couple of things here. First, trivial bits of a work with minimal creative expression are not covered b

Did you read the article? It explains this in detail. A couple of things here. First, trivial bits of a work with minimal creative expression are not covered by copyright. This sort of thing is called "de minimis". You can't assert copyright, for example, on the words "You're welcome" just because they appeared in a work you've copyrighted. If you could, you'd certainly be rich, but that kind of rent seeking is a little beyond the purpose of copyright. Rebecca Black's "Friday", as awful as it may be, is full of creative expression. Google is arguing that rangeCheck is extremely minimal and perfunctory, kind of like if it were accused of copying the word "Partying" from Rebecca Black. Second, IIRC Oracle is making a big deal out of this copying. Google was willing to pay a statuory fee for its indiscretion just like it would if it had actually used a trivial function from a high schooler, but Oracle is trying to make this function out to be a difficult and important part of Java, meaning it deserves a share of Google's profits.