Here's some old HN discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2806771
In real estate, you can own a plot of land and provide others with permissions associated with the land; maybe they're allowed to walk over a path that runs through your land. That permission is not equivalent to all possible permissions associated with the land - although maybe some ancillary ones are implied in. Maybe people are allowed to bike over the path too, but they certainly aren't allowed to dump broken washing machines there.
Similarly, in IP I can grant you a set of rights related to my product without giving you ALL rights related to my product.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-sc...
If I hand you a bag of balls and say you're allowed to play with the purple and green balls inside, I haven't given you permission to play with any of the other balls.
In this case, the different balls are the different dismemberments/rights related to Java.
[edit] Jonathan Schwartz: "The strategy was, we agree on these open APIs, then we compete on implementations."
What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against infringement. If you steal my software for making phones chirp every time you get a tweet and widely distribute it to the point that it becomes the de-facto standard in the tweet notification market, it doesn't magically mean that I don't get to come after you for stealing my tweet tech.
Here's the decision itself. Estopple is mentioned 0 times. This isn't because Google's legal team is braindead. It's because the argument that the Google's use was authorized following them walking away mid-licensing negotiation is insane. Google's defense is based on fair use. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...