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.
The appellate decisions are the status quo. It's worth remembering that Google's petition to the Supreme Court after the first appellate decision found for Oracle on the applicability of copyright issue was denied in 2015. Given that Google offered no new argument at its second appeal on this point (other than, in their words, to "preserv[e] its claim that the declarations/SSO are not protected by copyright law,"), it's unclear what they'll argue on this leg at the Supreme Court, or even how much shrift they'll get given their petition on this was earlier denied.
It is my opinion,...
That's quite a climbdown from your more definitive factual assertions about API copyright earlier. Thanks.
But you're still trying to draw some artificial and universal boundary between an API and source code, where no such clear boundary exists. I doubt the Supreme Court will go so far, in either direction. Considering your view that I don't believe source code should be copyrightable either," why bother to make the distinction?
GPL/Apache makes no difference (the OpenJDK was GPL); the code in dispute wasn't licenced to Google under any licence; they didn't agree one. I don't know why you keep raising Apache/Harmony; Google's claim it had copied from Harmony was whittled down in the early days when ASF denied some of the files were from Harmony, as reported on this very site. At this stage, those early claims don't rate a mention in the case judgements. The district court's first ruling against copyrightability for the 37 included this:
In particular, the Android platform replicated the same package, method and class names, definitions and parameters of the 37 Java API packages from the Java 2SE 5.0 platform.
The only specific versioned reference I can find an appeal ruling comes in the second:
By 2008, Java SE included 166 API packages divided into 3,000 classes containing more than 30,000 methods. At issue in this appeal are 37 API packages from Java SE Version 1.4 and Version 5.0. We have already concluded that the declaring code and the SSO of the 37 Java API packages at issue are entitled to copyright protection.
Google may have wanted devs to use the language, but at trial, even Oracle conceded that 3 of the 37 API packages copied were really "core" to the Java language (java.lang, java.io, and java.util). Google choose not to re-frame their defence and focus on these, probably because they'd still be on the hook for 34. They continued to maintain the fair-use argument for all 37, because "Google believed Java application programmers would want to find the same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by the same names as used in Java." This goes beyond just wanting to support the language, which they were free to do.
In any case, 'compatibility' doesn't create a fair-use defence. The precedents cited in the district court in support of this (relating to video games) were tossed on appeal as not being parallel to Google's conduct. They didn't copy in order to reverse-engineer, they copied to distribute.