Re: Allowing copyrights on API's
Your constant references to the appellate decision doesn't make you right either. If it did, the supreme court wouldn't have accepted this case.
I have read the judgement of the appellate court as well as both of the original judgments that were wrongly overturned. It is my opinion, and that of Google as well as many of the amici, that the appellate court got it wrong. Now Google will have their chance to convince the court that the appellate is wrong again. It's been receiving regular bench slaps from the supreme court for misapplying patent law. Now it will get a chance to be bench slapped for misapplying copyright law.
Copyright applied to source code, it has never applied to an API.
Your final sentence is nonsensical:
"Google could have done the right thing from day 1, but they wanted to fragment the Java platform, but not play under the GPL."
Google didn't want to fragment the Java platform. They wanted developers to be able to use the Java language. They could have gotten a license from Sun to use Java ME, which is what Sun wanted them to do. Google correctly deduced that Java ME wasn't fit for purpose. By that point in time Sun had already released the specs, excepting the TCK. Apache was re-writing Java SE legally under the Harmony project. This was licensed under the Apache license, the GPL has nothing to do with anything. Google used the Java API, code from Apache Harmony, and code that they wrote themselves. This included a new bytecode format and a new run time. They never called their platform Java nor claimed it was compatible.