There's a lot of similar responses regarding the API copyright issue. APIs have been 'subject to copyright' for 4 years, since the 2014 decision in this case. Lets see some key details:
This is the 2012 ruling:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf
Alsup indicates that SSO isn't dead law, but finds that APIs aren't copyrightable because they are 'the only one way to write" things to get the key functionality. Copyright doesn't cover purely functional elements and since the expression and the function are the same, copyright bows out.
Note: I like Alsup, but this argument is based on obviously factually incorrect premises which are blown up on appeal.
Here's the appeal in 2014: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...
They summarize the facts as follows: " And, the court informed
the jury that Google conceded that it copied the declaring
code used in the 37 packages verbatim. The court also
instructed the jury that Google conceded copying the
rangeCheck function and the eight decompiled security
files, but that Google maintained that its use of those
lines of code was de minimis. See Final Charge to the
Jury (Phase One), Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 3:10-cv3561
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012), ECF No. 1018 at 14 (“With
respect to the infringement issues concerning the
rangeCheck and other similar files, Google agrees that
the accused lines of code and comments came from the
copyrighted material but contends that the amounts
involved were so negligible as to be de minimis and thus
should be excused.”). "
Ie: Google copied and admitted it copied. This isn't a cleanroom implementation.
For more details on why they found copyrightability, see the discussion starting on p.17. There's a lot in there, and having a discussion about it (or at least a proper one) requires people to look at the actual text.
Edit: Made the formatting better.