You have a few things ass backwards with a fundamental lack of technological knowledge on more than a few points (to put it mildly), which is not unusual for lawyers and won't be for Oracle either.

> Google needed Java because developing a language ecosystem suitable for phone application takes years.

Google did not create a language 'eco system' from Java. They created an entirely new one. The only resemblance it has to Java is the fact that a few APIs look the same, and they presumably did this to help developers and phone manufacturers with familiarity and existing code. This is done every other day of the week in the software industry and presents no problem.

There is a fundamental comprehension problem about what the difference is between a set of APIs that a language uses, the language itself and its implementation.

> Anyway, Google claimed that APIs aren't copyrightable, but Oracle won that round.

The concept of APIs has been done and dusted before in the 80s and 90s and it will be again. If APIs are copywritable then there is no software industry. What's amusing is they they knew this was a problem because they had to build in a laughable fair use clause for interoperability. There is no situation where an API isn't used for interoperability and code reuse.

> First, it applies only to language-level APIs; not REST protocols, recently also referred to as APIs. This is not open to interpretation. Web "APIs" are not copyrightable for completely other reasons, reasons which are impossible

I think you need to re-read this back, carefully, and comprehend how utterly idiotic trying to separate 'web' APIs from 'other' APIs in terms of copywrite actually is. There is no difference and pigeon-holing this is plain laughable. The fact that you mention this shows that you, and probably Oracle, know what huge problems this causes. The whole argument is completely null and void and I'm afraid it very much is open for debate. Once again, we have legal people not knowing what they're talking about.

> Courts have ruled it legal to "violate" copyright for the purpose of creating components that are interoperable with the original. This means that if you implement an API in order to break vendor lockin, you're probably within your right to do so. However, that is not what Google did in this particular case (Android is not interoperable with Java, only very, very partially).

I'm afraid this is yet another piece of laughable misunderstanding and shows how shaky Oracle's legal case actually is. No one is under any obligation to implement a complete API. For example, there are many C standards and many implementations only implement a subset of a particular standard with a long list of caveats - and that's from compilers that claim to be C compatible. Implementing a subset of an API, taking code and compiling it on a new platform happens every other day of the week in software.

To attempt to claim that Google has no fair use argument because they didn't implement all of Java's APIs is completely laughable. There are a long list of exceptions going back decades that Google can use to completely invalidate this nonsense.

However, that's the big problem Oracle has. They have had to attempt to try and pigeon-hole what Google has used in Android as Java by jumping through a lot of nonsensical hoops.

> while it has been in Google's best interest to cause panic

There should quite rightly be panic. This means there is no software industry, and it goes way beyond Google and Oracle.

> It only applies to language-level APIs; it does not and cannot apply to web APIs and other protocols

This is complete tripe. It is impossible to pigeon-hole APIs in this manner because they exist at many different levels, and even this ridiculous definition still causes fundamental problems.

> Implementing an API is protected by the interoperability fair-use defense, even if Google's particular (and highly unusual) use isn't.

There is nothing unusual about what Google has done, but you would know that if you knew what you were talking about. Sadly, we have a lot of people, mostly legal, who simply don't.

As for what Google are doing with OpenJDK, I think it probably has more to do with tidying up their platform and multiple Android implementations more than anything else. Curiously, using OpenJDK and overriding core APIs with Classpath would also give them a pretty good example as to how ridiculous this whole thing is.