I think there is subtile difference. Java was, is and shall be a standard. To say you had a Java implementation meant that you supported the Java APIs. It was a legal definition. Google had Java-like runtime that they promoted as a Java runtime. This led to the question of API protections and reasonableness.
Using Google's API for your own competitive product API is different. Google has not set a standard for map APIs. At least not officially. It might be THE standard for maps, but that is neither here nor there. At this point you could call it cheating. They took intellectual property and appropriated it for a clone. Plus side, we now have an implied standard. Downside, theft of intellectual property.
1. Google Play Services APIs: These are optional, proprietary APIs. You don't have to use them, and you have to treat them as optional if you want to operate across Google, Amazon, and other AOSP-derived Androids. What's the issue here? They're like any other proprietary API.
2. "Breaking" the "Java standard:" Google "appropriated," via a permissive open source license, an open source implementation of some Java base classes, and the (not protectable) syntax of the Java language. They added support for their own remote API feature and a bunch of APIs, mainly to make a usable UI system. The result runs on a runtime Google devised, using a bytecode Google devised. Where is the intellectual property theft?
Using Google's API for your own competitive product API is different. Google has not set a standard for map APIs. At least not officially. It might be THE standard for maps, but that is neither here nor there. At this point you could call it cheating. They took intellectual property and appropriated it for a clone. Plus side, we now have an implied standard. Downside, theft of intellectual property.