We aren't talking about user interfaces here. This lawsuit does not involve UX. We are talking about interfaces between functional components. The analogy is spot on.
The lawsuit involves UX for a software framework. Which its API constitutes. The user happens to be a developer here and their usage is software development.
Your argument that the copying is once-removed is unfortunately irrelevant to copyright law.
None of those things would work.
Besides, creating minor differences do not solve this problem as they would still be derivative works.
Your question is exactly my point. I'm suggesting what I said earlier:
>> I don't think that's a good analogy at all.
But sure, if you say so.
It's possible to extend any analogy in a way that doesn't make sense, which is what you've done.
It seems like your complaint may be that you simply don't like, or perhaps don't understand, analogies in general.