Google has had some success with it’s Android operating system (which it gives away for free). The Android operating system has been implemented in a variety of devices including cell phones, computers and televisions.
When Google developed Android, it choose to implement a method whereby code written using the programming language called “Java” would be able to run on the Android devices. Since Google wanted a “free” operating system, they developed a java like implementation that used features from the Apache Harmony Project. Oracle (which actually bought the company that had developed Java) states:
the source code in Android’s “PolicyNodeImpl.java” class is nearly identical to “PolicyNodeImpl.java” in Oracle America’s Java, not just in name, but in the source code on a line-for-line basis
Carlo Daffara has compared the code himself, and his results are not as “cleaned up” as what Oracle presents to the court (and the public), and seem to show reasonable differences (some of the structures are actually standards that are to implemented by common agreement).
Google could have worked from the OpenJDK code base, but instead Google wanted to avoid using what is called the GPL license for some reason. And this is really the problem. Google wanted to let hardware manufactures write code and not have to release it with the phone (this is explained better at End Soft Patents), by avoiding the GPL license grant on OpenJDK, Google created a special problem for itself, that it could have avoided.
Another part of that problem might be due to Google having former Sun (which developed Java originally) engineers work on reinventing Java, and they basically wrote code the same way as when they worked for Sun (before Oracle bought Sun).
In any case, Google is a big company and should be able to sort this whole thing out with the courts and Oracle. I think the patent claims are not going to stand up well under scrutiny, but Oracle might have some arguments for Google having infringed on some copyrights.