The court battle between Google and Oracle took an interesting turn when two former Sun Microsystem bosses took to the stand. Both former executives disagreed on whether or not Google needed a license to use Java API's in Android, which leaves us to wonder what is really going on.

According to ex-Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz, Google would have only needed a license if the company used the Java name, something it planned on doing then later refused.

Schwartz testified to the jury saying, "We wanted them to take a license for Java and call their phone a Java phone." In the end, Google refused and according to Schwartz, Sun wasn't happy about it, but there was nothing it could have done to stop Google.

Next on the stand was Scott McNealy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. According McNealy, Google needed a license to use the Java API. He testified that while the Java language is free, the application programming interface weren't, thus Google was required to have a license.

This statement completely contradicts what Jonathan Schwartz said. However, how could this have happened? How could there be this massive confusion between them - one a former CEO and the other a co-founder - regards to whether or not the Java API is free.

What could be the reason behind both men disagreeing on Java license? Either someone is lying, or there was a lack of communication at the top before Oracle acquired Sun.

We've always heard that there was confusion at Sun about licensing Java, now it appears to be true. It almost seems that no one have the slightest idea whether Java is free or not, which could be the stepping stone in a possible Google victory.

(reported by Vamien McKalin, edited by Dave Clark)