Well you can have your own interpretation of copyright law, but the Supreme Court – who ruled in favor of Google exactly on the basis of these three tests I shared above – will disagree with you.
Also, there were four tests.
The general principle of the ruling is that:
- it was mostly about APIs; organization rather than implementation.
- it was sufficiently transformative
- it was a small amount of code of insubstantial value
- it was serving a different market
So, I suppose you have indeed proven that we can have different interpretations of copyright law.
Taking a small but substantial piece of implementation code and using it in a similar way for a similar purpose to solve a similar problem would appear to fail all of those tests, and at least to me smells like rancid infringement.