> I am most certainly not. I concede that I am not clear on how much this serves as a precedent if at all, but my comments are not predicated on that issue in the least (it is a minor point at best).
This:
> The only difference is that before (as Google did) you could make two arguments: 1) that APIs aren't copyrightable to begin with, and 2) if they are, then you're making fair use of them. Now only option 2 exists (with the caveat of the ruling serving as a precedent, as other commenters say).
is incorrect. Whether or not your comments are predicated on, you know, your comments themselves, I don't care.
> Android is not compatible with Java sources.
There is a whole lot of code that works on Android because those 37 Java packages are API-compatible, which was pretty important back in 2008. You can argue that's creating an incompatible Java ecosystem in order to allow Google to bootstrap an Android ecosystem, but that is compatibility.
As for your web APIs/protocol thing you're on about, I'd suggest defining what exactly you're talking about for anyone to discuss it with you. As it is you seem to be vaguely waving at something you've already defined to not be subject to copyright in order to give an example of something not subject to copyright...but now with a name that appeals to a broad audience (speaking of PR...)