Both copyright and patent law is already abused to a significant degree - that does not mean that the protections provided provide no worth or are unjustified.
The problem is a system that rewards bad actors - and yes Oracle is one of those bad actors.
The solution is to improve the system to disincentivise bad actors while continuing to provide time limited protections to those operating in good faith.
As I've mentioned in other comments best and reasonable efforts are standards already used in the legal system - and there is no reason that those standards could not be applied to reimplementation efforts.
All of the arguments that I've seen against what I'm suggesting are based around abuse of the system by bad faith actors - I think that they can be disincentivised without tearing it all down.
The best way to disincentivise bad actors is to not give them a nuclear bomb to go threaten people with.
The legal system has largely failed in constraining copyright and patent abuse, and indeed has been key in massively expanding their reach (See "business process" patents and software patents, as well as stuff like the DMCA to shut down basically anything that involves interfacing with things).
API copyright is absolutely a _new_ concept invented whole cloth by the court, what advantage do you think it brings, vs the heavy tax on literally every piece of software ever created it imposes (after all CPU instruction sets are APIs).
You have repeatedly failed to present any actual advantage it provides beyond "it was hard work". What new APIs are going to exist because of this new law, that did not exist beforehand? What is the point of even trying to design a system where supposedly only "good faith" is rewarded? (good luck with that one)
Copyright is not about ownership because you created something, it is about benefit to society, that's why it expires and the public domain exists and also does not apply to all works.
The problem is a system that rewards bad actors - and yes Oracle is one of those bad actors.
The solution is to improve the system to disincentivise bad actors while continuing to provide time limited protections to those operating in good faith.
As I've mentioned in other comments best and reasonable efforts are standards already used in the legal system - and there is no reason that those standards could not be applied to reimplementation efforts.
All of the arguments that I've seen against what I'm suggesting are based around abuse of the system by bad faith actors - I think that they can be disincentivised without tearing it all down.