Author is Dead Wrong
The author of this article couldn't be more dead wrong. I have studied this case for hours--you watch, Google will prevail on this one. Sun/Oracle had no objection to what Google did as manifested by their executives giving tacit approval to Android (until Larry Ellison and his legal team thought that they deserved to cash in on Google's success). From its onset, Java was open and was meant to be ubiquitous; that objective could never have been met with APIs closed to the extent Oracle was arguing. The jury concluded fair use and rightfully so.
Moral of story: don't make your product open and ubiquitous and then claim there is no possible/reasonable fair use (like Oracle tried to do). You can you make your computer language and APIs proprietary and enforce that legally, but good luck on trying to make that computer language and API set the most used in the world. Java's originators met their objective of becoming the most popular computer language, but they had to make trade offs to get there.
Side notes: Java's future was uncertain at one point. If you look at the License Agreement for Windows 95, Microsoft states that "the failure of Java technology could lead directly to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage." (It's laughable--much better to trust your life to Java than Windows 95--but Microsoft was trying to kill Java.) Sun had to joust with Microsoft to get Java in use more (through Microsoft) while still preserving the brand. Microsoft gave a brief to the court supporting Oracles position because they are the ultimate "sue your but over IP" company and an Oracle win would have been a huge help to Microsoft in furthering their "sue your but" agenda.
At the end of the day, Android's use of Java APIs will only further strengthen Java's brand.
As recognized by another post, if you check the author's posts on Groklaw, you'll find that he is no friend to open source.