Oracle Corp.'s long legal crusade to get a cut of Google's Android revenue is drawing to an unsatisfying close for the company. A ten-person jury found today that Google did not infringe two Java-related patents that Oracle had used to sue the search giant.

That means Oracle isn't likely to get anything at all from the trial, other than a tiny amount of damages from one copied function. The trial dragged on for nearly six weeks in a San Francisco federal courtroom, and both sides hired some of the nation's top technology lawyers to try the case.

Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the proceedings, thanked the jurors for their hard work on the case. He noted that the six-week trial was the longest civil trial he had presided over in his judicial career.

Oracle may still get the opportunity to retry its copyright case (since the verdict there was a bit confused), but it's unclear when that will take place—or if it will get that chance at all.

While Oracle will almost surely appeal the patent verdict, the trial results thus far have been a huge win for Google. The company's Android operating system has been under a variety of legal attacks, and Oracle's legal assault was the most persistent and direct.

Since Oracle didn't win its patent case, and because the copyright verdict was muddled and inconclusive, there won't be a third "damages" phase of the trial at all.

Google's lead lawyer Robert van Nest said afterward, "We are grateful for the jury's verdict." Google spokesman Jim Prosser echoed the sentiment. "Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google, but the entire Android ecosystem."

Oracle eventually commented as well. Spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger: "Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility."

The incredible shrinking jury

The verdict comes after more than a week of what must have been tedious deliberations. The jury barraged the judge with several highly technical questions about issues like the exact meaning of "simulated execution" and "array initialization."

The jury has also shrunk in size. It started out as a 12-person panel of seven women and five men, but two of the women were dismissed—one when she missed the first day of patent deliberations after a car breakdown, and another who left after falling too ill to participate.

API copyright issue lingers

The parties have already briefed the issue of whether an API can be copyrighted at all; today they added to that pile of paperwork, producing briefs addressing specific questions about interoperability.

Judge Alsup still hasn't ruled on the issue of whether APIs can be copyrighted at all. Additional briefing by both sides is due today. Alsup this morning reassured lawyers that his ruling on the issue will come sometime next week.