A little more nuance: it's not only that Oracle is bad, but that Sun was good.
Oracle's business model is about extracting value; whereas Sun was about building platforms (which they did several times). Oracle has a history of squeezing open projects and alienating developers. You're right, they've taken care not to completely chew up the tremendous business value of Java, only test-nibbling at the edges: projects like Hudson (now Jenkins), changes to JCP, cutting evangelists.
Many key people left Sun before or soon after the acquisition. Oracle is a different place to work, being sales-focused. It's not entirely due to Oracle though; the game had changed and Sun was no longer leading.
It's not specific changes to java, but changes to the philosophy of the java custodian. These determine its future.
BTW: I can't speak for the other upvoters, but I think Google was clearly in the wrong. They knew it, Sun knew it - but let them get away with it because a new platform was good for java (NB cf. Sun litigated MS for fragmenting java). In contrast, Oracle is suing Google for revenue, not for any platform.
So... although Google is the bad guy, it illustrates the different philosophies of Sun vs
Oracle.
In this sense the old java - its philosophy and its future - "doesn't exist anymore". :(