Yes, I'm aware of the foreman's position. I'm also aware that the judge had to previously overrule the jury's conclusion (when it erroneously ruled in favor of google) during the infringement phase because, as he stated, "no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion [that google had not infringed upon oracle]". The jury's position that you are reading there is only in regards to the patent phase. Try to read the patents...I say try because even with my background I have a difficult time trying to understand the ins and outs of them. We have a number of reasons to suspect that the jury was pro-google, agnostic or outright anti-oracle, and lack a fundamental technical background to understand patents and/or patent law. Keep in mind that jurors who exhibit any amount of expertise in these areas will be challenged from the pool.
Let's not too hung up on that, however, I respect the rule of law and our jury system even though my professional hat and expertise is in the deficiencies in our legal model (full disclosure: my hobby hat is in software development as a amateur whereas my professional hat is in criminology and law as a phd holder). I respect the jury's decision although I disagree with it. I merely point out these things in the paragraph above to illustrate that we ought not rely on the lay person's desire or lack of desire to rule in Oracles favor as any significance to the points you and I are discussing.
That said, Google did not buy any rights. That's the main issue. If they had bought any rights I would be in full agreement with you. What they did was take open-source code and design, re-write the core portions of it, then *relicensed* it under a more commercial version of an open-source model. This might be confusing but licenses are not to restrict, licenses are to release. That means, when I create something it's *already* protected. In order to give it to you and allow you to do what you will with it I have to relinquish it under some form of license. Previous to copyleft license structures the structure was one of copyright. All the rights are and will remain with the original creator unless specifically given away--and the Oracle case won't change that one way or the other if they win copyrightability of APIs.
Read the comments to the article you linked. It's telling that people responding are not necessarily agreeing with the author. Keep in mind, however, to read any and all published and personal commentary about Oracle with a hefty dose of salt. Many people have a negative view of Oracle purely because of the loss of Sun. That sentiment is going to naturally bleed into any endeavors they do.
The issue I'm taking with your posts is the conception you have of the nature of "open". You seem to be operating under the belief that Google's android is open and free. It's only open and free in so far as Google wants it to be. Even your repeated claim that they will retain openness of the platform for at least 5 more years. Consider the fact that if it were really, truly open and free and if the way they were licensing it (and historically behaving) were in line with the open source community then that would not have to be said.
Do you know of other open source projects that "promise" to maintain their development open and free for X amount of time? Does Apple make that announcement regarding webkit? Does ubuntu publicly announce a roadmap for open and free development? Did Mint tell everyone, don't worry guys, we're going to keep this thing free for you for at least a few years when they forked ubuntu? No. The reason is because when something is chained to the GPL license it can't be unchained. It will remain free *forever*. If you can figure out how to monetize that, like Red Hat for example, then more power to you. But one can't just copy how something works and relicense it under a more commercial version of an open source license (well not until now)!
The reason why this is important, and why it's important to understand why java and android are not compatible, is because android is now forcing java developers to either adopt their platform or die out.
I'm trying to think of a great analogy. I don't know if this will work but here goes: Did you use to have a washington mutual bank account? Before Chase bought WaMu many of us had accounts with our checks and etc. When Chase bought WaMu they pledged to support our grandfathered accounts. Many people, like myself, did not immediately change banks. We had our old accounts, our numbers, everything linked to those accounts and it all continued to work. The problem arose a couple years later when Chase decided to stop issuing free checks and establishing service charges for various things that were previously free to WaMy Free Checking customers. When I asked what happened to my account the bank manager explained to me that the pledge was only to get WaMu customers accustomed to the "Chase way of doing things" and that I had, in fact, been "upgraded." I explained that the only things I had seen "upgraded" were the fees I had to pay! His response was understanding...he was, after all, my Washington Mutual bank manager for the past ten years. He gave me some free checks...he didn't have to and he doesn't have to keep doing it but none of that is really the point. I'm not particularly hurting for $20 dollar check orders.
That scenario roughly approximates what has happened so far with Google and java. It's compatible enough that developers could readily adapt to it, familiar enough that no one had to make large expenditures to understand how to code for it (well, except for Sun who developed it and Oracle who bought Sun's property), but incompatible enough that developers can't make their stuff run on both java and android--which I should point out is (was) the core strength of Java! The point of java was write once, run everywhere.
Rest assured that if Oracle wins the copyrightable issue it will not be the end of open source development. In fact, that's already the case currently. No company can take webkit, for example, tweak it, then *relicense* it under a commercial license. Google's position is the "innovative" one in this scenario and Google's behavior threatens the future of java--not the other way around. And that position I hold seems in direct contradiction to your position but perhaps I am misunderstanding your opinion.
I think you are of the opinion that Google somehow freed Java from Oracle and is now giving it to the community.
In reality, Google wrested control of java from Oracle by rewriting certain portions of it so that they could release it without abiding by the terms of the GPL.
Incidentally, in regards to the damage it's doing to Apple and MS, the reason android devices can be sold so inexpensively is because they do not have to pay the same license fees as other companies. But they don't have to pay license fees, not because the companies that developed the technology granted them that right, they do it because of stolen technology.