Re: wholly negative implications
I remain unconvinced.
WRT GNU Classpath: Classpath presumably includes a System.out.println() (and I assume that function is one of the 11,000 lines of code that Oracle and Google are fighting over). I believe you when you say Classpath's version of that function was *implemented* completely independently of Oracle's version, but so what? I'm sure Google independently implemented the Android version. Oracle is trying to claim that you need a license from them simply to use that function signature even if you provide your own implementation.
As for the C library, yes there are freely licensed versions available now. But if the courts rule that function definitions are copyrightable, do those licenses remain valid? Take the example of the printf() function: I *assume* that was first written by Dennis Ritchie when he was working for Bell Labs. If function definitions are copyrightable, then Bell Labs would have started out with the copyright. Given the long and tangled history of C and Unix, I don't know who owns the copyright now. But it could be argued that whoever does own the copyright never gave permission to have that function definition placed under a BSD license and thus that license is invalid.