Google Chairman Eric Schmidt testified that his company developed the Android operating system using the Java programming language after partnership talks with Sun Microsystems fell through and ...

Jonathan Schwartz testifies that Java APIs were not considered proprietary or protected by Sun, as long as Google didn't use the Java name, countering Oracle's claims that Google infringed on its ...

Google’s “Java guru” took the stand in the infringement trial between Google and Oracle, where he admitted that he was “perfectly willing to believe” he may have accessed copyright Sun ...

In a tersely worded press release, Oracle announced that it was suing Google for patent and copyright infringement over its use of the Java programming language for Android development. Neither ...

Google previously said that it rejected a $100 million offer from Sun to license Java patents. But it now said the companies were close to agreeing on a lesser figure around a partnership deal to ...

Google maintains that Android's 15 million lines of code only contain parts of Java that were freely available in the public domain.

A jury has found that Google infringed Oracle's Java copyrights in Android but could not decide unanimously if the infringement was protected by "fair use." ...

Oracle's lawsuit against Google for Java patent infringement highlights how Android is going to become a big target in court.

Before it sued Google for copying from Java, Oracle got rich copying IBM’s SQL Oracle's history highlights a possible downside to its stance on API copyrights.

At the heart of Oracle's lawsuit is the allegation that Google improperly used pieces of the mega-important Java technology in Android without paying properly for the privilege. Google argues that ...

Google’s use of Java APIs in Android has been the subject of a long-running legal dispute with Oracle. Larry Ellison’s team believes Google needs to pay up for exploiting Oracle IP and has ...

A federal jury ruled that Google’s use of Oracle Corp.’s Java software didn’t violate copyright law, the latest twist in a six-year legal battle between the two Silicon Valley titans.