APIs are nearly identical to code in terms of what they are, it's very reasonable to apply the same copyright rules.
I don't really agree, except to say that, sure, there's a good argument that code is purely functional (in the sense of “providing function”, not the programming paradigm), too. But copyrightability of code isn't the issue in this case.
Oracle is trying to claim that they own the idea of a toolbox with a tool called a "screwdriver", a tool called a "hammer", and a tool called "wire cutters", and nobody is allowed to make their own toolbox using the same list of names of tools.
I don't know how anyone who's written code could even say this.
APIs have comments, they are expressive, there is considerable choice in design and they are a 'list of names' the same as the list of names attached to variables.
"The decision to have a function called `sqrt` and put it in a module called `math` is not creative, and it is definitely not artistic."
Yes, it absolutely is, in the sense that literally any arbitrary sentence or gibberish that I write is creative and copyrightable.
I can copyright: "Blahdy Blady Blady Blah" right now.
API design is as creative as any other part of the code.
The question is an API a significantly creative work, vs the implementation.
Historically - because the entire modern world depends on it - APIs were not considered copyrightable, largely because the creativity is embodied by the implementation.
You clearly disagree, I am curious if you believe being able to have competing software was detrimental - for example say MS claimed copyright over the XMLHttpRequest API? Or google over search engine query API, etc
Letters are part of a novel, do you think that authors have a copyright to the letters that they use?
What it definitely shouldn't be is copyrighted, the class of IP that's made for stuff like novels and paintings, where the protection is automatic and lasts until 90 years after your death.
It helps nobody to have to wait until 2150 to write an interface for Java.