"For its part, Oracle has presented damning and unequivocal evidence that Google knew it needed a licence if it was to build Android on Java"
"Unequivocal" ? Well if you're talking about having Android running on a certified compatible implementation of Java SE (e.g. certified via the JCK), then yes... but it doesn't. That leads to the question of whether there is a requirement to obtain a license for the "necessary IP" the JCP expert group members may have - something the clean room implementation was, in part, meant to avoid. The liability as found in the trial for the copyright side of the implementation has been described by Judge Alsup as essentially zero - the patent part is being debated now - so it's hard to agree with you here.
If you're suggesting that there is "unequivocal evidence that Google knew it needed a licence" to implement Android as they have done - well then, no, that's simply not true.
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month
- More than half of Windows 8 users just treat it like Windows 7