"If Oracle wins, the decision could set a legal precedent that legitimizes controlling behaviors by platform vendors -- and introduces a complex and unwelcome legalism into software development," Simon Phipps, a former Sun executive who managed the company's open-source projects, wrote in a for Infoworld before the trial began.

Google echoed that position in a statement Thursday. "The court's decision upholds the principle that open and interoperable computer languages form an essential basis for software development. It's a good day for collaboration and innovation."

In its statement, Oracle essentially argued the opposite. "This ruling, if permitted to stand, would undermine the protection for innovation and invention in the United States and make it far more difficult to defend intellectual property rights against companies anywhere in the world that simply takes them as their own," Oracle said.

Naughton made a similar argument in a earlier this week.

"Open source licensing of APIs or code works precisely because copyright applies to the API or code and allows the copyright owner to impose the terms and conditions of the open source license," Naughton wrote.