It sounds like Oracle probably has some contractual obligations to live up to, and if so, HP deserves for them to uphold their end of the bargain. That said, I can understand Oracle's lack of desire to throw good money after bad. Itanic might not be dead, but it's comatose in a hospice with friends and family gathered around. Who'd want to spend much time and effort on a system that almost nobody wants?

It's not unreasonable for a home (ie, non-commercial, not another ISP, etc) subscriber to a subscription service such as Internet to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home. As a parent, I'm held responsible for the activities of my children. I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for. If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.

And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.

This comment will probably be misinterpreted as as a troll, but it's not. I'm just a hard-ass who follows the rules and it just plain pisses me off that some other people figure they can ignore them just because their chance of being caught is infinitesimal.

Sure, but I suppose the definition of 'purchaser' in this context needs to be clarified. After all if you download a 'free' piece of software, then are you 'buying' a piece of software for 0€? This is important, since Java can freely be downloaded in compiled or source form, with the latter under GPL.