OpenJDK is licensed by Oracle under an open source license (and Google has made use of this license, and even internally forked OpenJDK, both during the trial and now). The court trial was over an unlicensed use of Java (Google claimed they didn't need a license because the APIs weren't Oracle's to license, but in any event, that lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with OpenJDK).
Oh, that wasn't intended as an argument that OpenJDK is unsafe, I was just asking why it's relevant that Oracle hasn't shown aggression towards non-Oracle OpenJDK distributions yet, when nobody has brought up concerns about how Oracle already is aggressive towards OpenJDK distributions.
I can probably agree that Oracle is relatively unlikely to start coming after people for patent infringement related to using OpenJDK or forks thereof, when OpenJDK is licensed under a license with a patent grant. My biggest concern is just that Oracle seems like a thoroughly evil and unpredictable company, and I wouldn't like to use technology they own and which uses patents they own. I wouldn't have imagined that Oracle would ever come after people for re-implementing their API; I can't imagine what Oracle will do in the future, but I won't build a business or institution around the assumption that they will do nothing. It's not like there aren't a plethora of other solutions for anything developed by Oracle, most of which are better than Oracle's alternatives.
The copyright to non-Oracle OpenJDK distributions is still owned by Oracle, but Oracle licenses OpenJDK as free software (as in beer and in speech).
I think that even if it made sense to assign virtue judgments to corporations, it would be a huge stretch to claim that Oracle is any more evil than other companies of similar size, like Google, Facebook, Microsoft or Apple, but as I work for Oracle, I'm obviously biased.
