> Our legal system is such that Oracle can still burn you down, even if you are right.

Do you happen to know of any real-world case that's similar to the scenario you've described?

Google v Oracle comes to mind.

Google should not have tried to screw Sun, they still had the option to buy Sun and choose not to.

Google basically won that, didn't they? Despite cloning another companies technology from scratch without paying any kind of licensing fees at all.

Didn't Google end up importing OpenJDK code?

Partially, you cannot pick a random jar from Maven Central and be confident that it will work on Android.

They only support part of the standard library, the OpenJDK parts have been cherry picked and not all are made available on the same Android version and then there are the bytecodes that were introduced since Java 7.

And for Java language support, you need to have Android Oreo version of ART as not all language features get desugared into older versions.

There is some AOSP activity related to Java 9, but so far Google has been silent if there will be any further improvements beyond Java 8.

How so in the case of using GPL code?

I'm not completely sure because I'm not familiar with the topic, but maybe it has to do with the fact that even when they sue you with an impossible-to-win lawsuit, they can destroy you with the cash you need to expend to even start defending yourself.

This can also destroy investment rounds for many startups.

Okay but they can do that even if you don't use Java.

And even if you don't do any bussiness with them. Oracle can sue anyone, they sue a lot. Like most companies they only do so if they think they can make a profit.

They could sue you, with a higher chance of winning, for using a python, a js or a ruby than for using OpenJDK derived code.

Oracle holds JavaScript trademark. Nobody's safe :)

I'm fine with calling it EczemaScript