I can see that argument if you consider the API design to be a significant intellectual contribution which Oracle can prove considering the popularity of Java and it's ecosystem.
I'm not sure I see what you mean there. If the API design is a significant intellectual contribution, and I'm inclined to say it is, that would be that the API is copyrighted. But that would mean that the API is copyrighted, not that its copyrighted for some purposes and not for others. Oracle seems to be saying that the API is only copyrighted for the purposes of implementing them, not invoking them, and I can't see what basis they're using to make that distinction. There may be something I'm missing, though.
