Re: You need to go back and reread the judgements in the case
Actually you really do need to brush up on your recent appellate decisions. Back in 2015 the 9th circuit (you know the one who's precedents the appellate court was supposed to be following) ruled ( https://www.eff.org/files/2015/10/09/yoga-copyright-opinion-ca9_0.pdf ):
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE OF INDIA, L.P.; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY, v. EVOLATION YOGA, LLC; MARK DROST; ZEFEA SAMSON (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 2015) ("Because copyright protection is limited to the expression of ideas, and does not extend to the ideas themselves, the Bikram Yoga Sequence is not a proper subject of copyright protection.").
There's no real split in the 9th. And the appellate decisions you reference clearly show that the court had no idea how an API differed from source code. This example is illustrative:
'Appellant Br. 50. Using the district court's "java.lang. Math.max" example, Oracle explains that the developers could have called it any number of things, including "Math. maximum" or "Arith.larger." This was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages.6 As the district court recognized, moreover, "the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked."'
While that is true, the result wouldn't be compatible with the Java language. What they are saying is that since Google could have used C, or FORTRAN, or Cobal, or something completely new, they are guilty of copyright infringement when they re-implemented Java.
Finally, since the supreme court granted certiorari it doesn't stand unless affirmed.