Not forked, re-implemented

More accurately, the re-implementation is Apache's Harmony.

Re-implementation of Java is OK but you can't call it Java (see famous Sun-MS lawsuit).

Nicking other people's source code is wrong - and Oracle did find some test subsystem code that was present in Android distributions. That was removed as soon as it was brought to the Android people's attention, leaving the copyright focus of this case to be the Java API.

By definition a re-implemented API is going to look *very* much like the original (think SysV vs. BSD Unix header files) and it's hard to tell how much may have been copied vs. how much just has to be the same for that API to be useful.

Up til now nobody has thought it worthwhile to sue over APIs, so the rights and wrongs are not clearly established, but every dev who has worked on multiple platforms has probably seen the same basic API ingredients rehashed on each one - so probably not much hope for Oracle except where the APIs in question are uniquely Java-ish and not derived from something else.

Something like the time Apple sued Microsoft and HP over the appearance of Windows 3.1/NewWave - and got off on the basis that Apple had themselves based their UI on Xerox's work.