How does this differ from what Google did with Android, effectively leading to "Java apps that can only run on Android"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google
Sun settled with Microsoft before a verdict was reached, so the question of IP and if alternate implementations of a language syntax is allowed wasn't answered then.
In the antitrust suit, all that was answered was that Microsoft used its advantage with its operating system monopoly to push its version of the Java runtime. The effect was that Microsoft were not allowed to bundle their runtime, but had to offer users the choice - they were not found to be violating Sun's IP in implementing a runtime.
Syntax of a programming language not being IP protected is probably a good thing for developers, regardless of what you think of the Microsoft situation. The API being protected is a separate issue, as is the trademark on the name (which applied in the Microsoft case but not in Google's since they didn't use the trademark term in their implementation)
But in the case you cited, the API was found to be not protected (which is also the proper ruling in my opinion).
"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhaul-of-...
One wonders how much better the world would be if Google had hired some first employees that preferred expressive languages.
Microsoft was a Java licensee, and Sun claimed the license required them to implement the standardized Java interface. Sun sued over the license and antitrust issues.
Google isn't a Java licensee. Oracle sued over copyright issues.