What really gets me is the whole lameness behind the suit.
The Java license is clear: even though Java is open source, Oracle grants a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to use Java.
It seems that Oracle is arguing that Google's Android has violated its Java patents by running on a mobile device, where it's not allowed, instead of sticking to the desktop, where it's permitted.
Oracle needs everybody to stay their place, and can't afford to have different versions of Java running where they aren't allowed. To do so would allow two things: it would challenge the neat division of what versions of Java run where, and it would mean people could then begin disputing how much they pay Oracle in licensing fees.
It's not so much about using Java as it is using Java Desktop on a mobile. These days smartphones are getting so powerful that such distinctions are fast becoming redundant.