I don't see why. WINE is done for interoperability and is non-profit: two fair use defenses. SQL is a language and therefore not copyrightable (its spec isn't "fixed", which is a prerequisite for copyright). And as for SCO, AFAIK, it was ruled that they don't own the copyright to begin with.
This says they are[1]: Interoperability has been succesfully used as a fair-use defense in the past, and commercial use decreases the chances of a fair-use ruling. Both points (interoperability and commercial use) are central to the Oracle v. Google case, and have been brought up by both sides. See here[2]:
I reached out to Collard, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, who specializes in intellectual property... "In my opinion, the biggest problem for Google is the commercial nature of its use [of the APIs]," he said. "That is generally a strike against finding fair use. Its best argument is probably interoperability -- in other words, it should be fair use because Google must use the APIs in order to make its products interoperable."
