I probably should have made this clearer, since others have asked the same question. This suit is unlike the Sun v Microsoft suit in that Microsoft was buildin

I probably should have made this clearer, since others have asked the same question. This suit is unlike the Sun v Microsoft suit in that Microsoft was building a licensed Java implementation, which they actually advertised as being a compliant Java implementation...and then they started making incompatible modifications to it. Not simply to the VM or by adding their own libraries off to the side, but by actually modifying some of the java.* core classes. This is obviously way out of bounds when claiming you're a specification-compliant Java, and as a result Sun went ape all over their asses. FWIW, even though Android doesn't claim to be "Java", they've kept the core classes they ship API-compatible (and no supersetting) with Java 1.5's.