The big question here is the distinction between standard and API. If Java is also a standard, then laws applicable to all sorts of standards apply. And this c

The big question here is the distinction between standard and API. If Java is also a standard, then laws applicable to all sorts of standards apply. And this could be a relatively good line of defense. An API itself is not necessarily a standard. More importantly, a distinction would have to be made between a standard and its implementation. Technical argument is whether API is procedural or textual. Procedures cannot be copyrighted only patented, including design patents and algorithm patents. But API itself is not procedural. QWERTY sequence of letters is not necessarily copyrightable because it's not a document or result of machine processing of one and as such is a bad analogy. An API actually has a source code and mechanically processed version. Oracle publishes it as documentation, which is probably copyrighted, and Java source code, which was copyrighted until OpenJDK. The trick here is to define minimum creativity required for copyrightable work. If the API is narrow and trivial, you probably cannot copyright it anyway. There is additonal trouble when said API has no meaning without an implementation or is not published. Reverse engineering may be prohibited by a licence.