"This is not a fairness issues"
I was actually making a mild observation that Oracle were seeking to get a different set of evidence heard, rather than simply making a dumb appeal with nothing more to bring to the bench, and thus not quite fitting in Einstein's observation of which FrankAlphaXII so pleasantly reminded us. But you seem to have taken it rather to heart. Bad luck.
"Oracle has lost case after case after case on this."
Actually, on cases that have reached a final settlement Oracle (of which I'm no especial fan) have done quite well. Google have been found to have breached Oracle's copyright, and that's settled. AFAIK that's about the only part of this whole sorry saga that has actually been finally, conclusively decided.
"They keep adjusting and changing the premise, just hoping that some of their crap sticks to the wall."
Well? They're allowed to do that you know. If you don't like the way the legal system in the USA works I suggest you take that up with your local congressmen (assuming you're resident in the USA).
"Google developed Android and based their API on Java well within the legal and moral framework of the time."
We don't know that yet. The court cases have not been fully exhausted yet. As for "moral", if you think a legal judgement is somehow not moral then I suggest you take that up with local congressmen to see if they can have the law brought more into line with your own view.
"The owners of Java had also open sourced it"
"there was a clean room environment of it and the owner endorsed and supported it, and still does!"
OpenJDK was endorsed, not Dalvik. Dalvik in not Java byte code compatible goes AFAIK against the terms under which Java is licensed. Breaking "Java" is something that has previously cost companies money, e.g. Microsoft.
"Replicating someones API has always been seen as okay in computer programming and is done by many major and small companies. "
Not okay anymore in the USA. Google lost that one. It's OK in the EU. Dunno about the Far East - Japan has some pretty restrictive copyright laws.
"As has already been stated this is a complete myth often peddled to try to get a corporation a reason for doing some wrongdoing (sorry we didn't pay our taxes, it was our legal duty)."
I've never once heard of a shareholder who doesn't want their company to exploit every opportunity to pay minimum tax whilst sticking to the letter of the law or make a large profit by any reasonable means. Lawyers-at-dawn is easy-peasy for a large company like Oracle.
"Just look around, plenty of corporations pay full taxes and don't use tax havens so why aren't they being sued by shareholders or being hauled into jail."
I look around and I see a lot of companies who aren't massive multinationals and therefore cannot exploit all the tricks availabel to Google, Apple, etc. If such shennanigans were an option for every Mom'n'Pop outfit, their accountant would be advising them to make use of them.
" Well, you should be. If you are in IT then increasing the avenues for lawsuits in the software environment can only ever be a bad thing."
I know very well that a weakening of the copyright laws is going to be a very bad thing for everyone. If one's copyrighted material can be abused because someone else has deemed it "fair use" that sounds bad for, well, the smaller outfits I guess. We don't all have the legal resources to take on a behemouth like Google.
"You may not like Google but jump in to bed with Oracle and you haven't solved anything!"
I never said anything about favouring Oracle, that's something you've dreamt up all on your own.