Google did not agree to a license but if Oracle convinces the court they needed one then that is a moot point (Oracle asserts trademark, copyright, and patents

Google did not agree to a license but if Oracle convinces the court they needed one then that is a moot point (Oracle asserts trademark, copyright, and patents to make this claim I believe). All the differences between what MS and Google did are irrelevant if Oracle can convince the court that having Java all over the developer website and documentation created confusion with respect to what Java is. I think to a relatively non-technical judge they have a chance -- I can imagine a judge asking himself/herself, "So you used the language Java and the libraries for Java but you said that it wasn't Java. But if it walks and talks like a duck and you call it a chicken are you still not creating confusion for anyone who knew what a duck was before you showed them your 'chicken'?" I agree that this would line projects like IKVM up to get nailed but that has nothing to do with the merits of the case.