Thud. (my reaction to the cable. oy) The things you describe do not surprise me. Oracle and Open Source may both begin with the letter O, but the similarity ends there. I'm no expert on Oracle (far from it), but open source doesn't seem to be consistent with Oracle's DNA.
Since I wrote that initial comment, I went and read (a good deal of) the legal ruling in the Oracle vs Google case.
The intro is basically a tutorial on java and programming languages and APIs in general. Amazingly lucid. I'm a technology generalist of the digital imaging, design, tech writing, explanation, web development and code copy-er and paste-er variety, but I stop at seriously writing code from scratch. (in the pick your battles, I gave up there.) This means that I've passing familiarity with code, but some foundational principles that real coders know at the assumption level pass me by completely. For a person with my level of understanding, the Judge's stuff was spot-on brilliant.
Anyway, skipped the middle part of the ruling (case history of software and copyright), then read the final section for the decision.
The trial -- and the merits (or lack) thereof get at the difference between copyright and patents. (hi. Patents, again, for this off-topic diversion about Oracle/Google, I'm trying to get back on topic.) Insightful stuff. Patents last for 20 years, copyright protections (now) last for 95 years.
From p 35 of the finding,
Based on a single implementation, Oracle would bypass this entire patent scheme and claim ownership over any and all ways to carry out methods for 95 years — without any vetting by the Copyright Office of the type required for patents.
Put that way, Oracle's complaint is pretty damn brazen.