both sides agree on: - you cannot copyright language - you can copyright implementation.
so all comes down to: - can you copyright APIs ?
both sides agree on: - you cannot copyright language - you can copyright implementation.
so all comes down to: - can you copyright APIs ?
Oracle tries to draw a boundary between the language and the APIs, but there is no boundary to be drawn.
What Google did was remove a chapter here and there and add a couple of their own chapters -- in this book analogy, clearly copyright infringement.
The actual quotes used in the slides is "you form an API using those parts of speech in the same way I'd write a technical paper using, you know, nouns, verbs, objects, so on." In other words, you couldn't copyright java.lang package name itself (an adjective say) but you could copyright the collection of everything in it (as like technical paper).
I'm astounded that this is in Google's slides. Slide 12 basically says the Java API, taken as a whole, is copyrightable.
The language must have words with meaning (API specification).
A dictionary is a book of words and their definition (API implementation). You can have two different dictionaries from the same language. They both have their copyrights, and they don't infringe each other copyrights.
Harmony's Java API implementation (used in Android) and JDK's Java API implementation are just two different dictionaries for the same language (Java API specification).
You will use a dictionary (API implementation) of a language - its symbols and words and the rules between them - (programming Language and API specification) to write a book (programs).
Both dictionary and book are subject to copyright. The language is not.