You can also come up with your own words to replace those of the English language, while continuing to use the same grammar, but that won't be English anymore, with the proof being that nobody will understand what you're saying.
This is exactly what a standard API provides for a language ... the standard vocabulary of that language, without which that language is no longer the same language. The distinction itself between the standard API and Java the language simply does not exist and never in Java's history was the API pushed out of context when Sun/Oracle referred to Java ... quite the contrary, to pass the TCK and be able to use the "Java" trademark, then you have to implement those APIs.
I invite you to watch the presentation of Guy Steele (one of Java's designers) on "Growing a Language" ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415
they refuse to accept that Google is the bad apple here
The lawsuit barely started and you've got to prove first that Google is the bad apple here. Quite the contrary, it doesn't look good for Oracle.
I do think that people side with Google on this one because otherwise it would open a huge can of worms, as other useful projects on which we rely on could cease to exist. This is not fanboyism, but rather self-preservation.
Google copied Sun's work, didn't pay Sun for it,
and at the same time destroyed Sun's future revenue
from Java licenses
This sentence made me laugh, because Sun destroyed its own future revenue by being incapable of releasing anything that comes close to Android. Sun destroyed its own future because of its own incompetence. As I view it, Google helped Sun because Android is keeping Java fresh and relevant.
But this is capitalism not morality
Well, actually, true capitalism excludes
government-granted monopolies, because that goes against the concept of
the free market. And copyright and patent protections are just that, government granted monopolies promoted by people and companies that rely on legislature to keep them relevant, instead of building and selling stuff to customers.
It's also funny that you bring the issue of "morality" into discussion, as arguments based on morality are often used to justify these government-granted monopolies, contrary to the law of the fittest that applies to the free market, which is immoral and unforgiving.