SAN FRANCISCO—Alphabet CEO Larry Page testified in federal court this morning, saying that he never considered getting permission to use Java APIs, because they were "free and open."

The CEO of Alphabet, Google's parent company, spoke in a soft staccato and was hard to understand at times. (Page suffers from a condition that affects his vocal chords.) Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks.

Page's testimony comes in the final hours of the Oracle v. Google trial. The lawsuit began when Oracle sued Google in 2010 over its use of 37 Java APIs, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. In 2012, a judge ruled that APIs can't be copyrighted at all, but an appeals court disagreed. Now, unless a jury finds that Google's use of APIs was "fair use," Oracle may seek up to $9 billion in damages.

Bicks read from Google's SEC statement, in which the company said any "unauthorized use of Google intellectual property" could harm the company.

"I agree that's a true statement," Page said.

"And the same would apply to Oracle, right?" Bicks asked.

"Yes. I agree, it's a true statement," Page replied.

Bicks asked, "Are you familiar with something called 'Larry's List of Don'ts?' Remember on your list of don'ts was 'Don't copy other products'?" Bicks asked.

"Yeah, that sounds familiar," replied Page.

Bicks then referenced former Android chief Andy Rubin's "wish them luck" e-mail, in which he wrote that "java.lang APIs are copyrighted."

"Mr. Rubin, he told you that the Java APIs were copyrighted?" Bicks asked.

"The Java APIs? Yes, I believe he did," Page said, adding, "Java.lang APIs is not a well-defined term."

Bicks wanted to pull up Rubin's e-mail on screen, but it wasn't addressed to Page, so the judge wouldn't allow it. Bicks took another tack.

"Did you ever ask whether the java.lang APIs were copyrighted?" Bicks asked.

"I don't believe I did," Page replied.

"Did you ask anyone to investigate whether Google engineers had copied Oracle’s copyrighted materials?" Bicks asked.

"I don't recall ever asking that," Page said.

“You did copy the code”

Bicks moved on to another e-mail, which he was allowed to put up on the courtroom screens. The message was a note from Andy Rubin to upper management, laying out strategic options for Android. One option was to do a deal with Sun, while a second option to go ahead and use Java without a license, but the company would "make enemies along the way."

"I have some remembrance of that," Page said. "At the time, we were discussing doing a deal with Sun that involved using their proprietary technology. My remembering, at the time, is we were negotiating with Sun for their implementation of Java."

Page acknowledged that the company ultimately chose not to take a license from Sun.

"But you did copy the code and copy the structure, sequence, and organization of the APIs?" Bicks asked, raising his voice.

"I don't agree with 'copy code,'" Page said.

"It's been agreed to by the parties in this court—" Bicks began, incredulous that Page would disagree with the language of a stipulation agreed to by his lawyers.

"For me, declaring code is not code," Page said.

"How many lines of declaring code did your company copy?" Bicks said. "Do you know?"

"I've already testified, I don't know the details of that," Page answered.

Bicks then turned to earnings calls and internal presentation in which Page and others extolled the success of Android. One presentation boasted of a "$43 billion per year ecosystem" around Android. The presentation was truthful, Page said, but much of the money in that "ecosystem" represented payments to carriers like Verizon and AT&T, not Google.

"But you did say on an earnings call that Android's growth was 'mind-boggling,' lighting up 700,000 phones per day?" Bicks asked.

"I've already testified, I think Android is significant to Google," Page said.

"Do you know whether or not that copied code of Oracle's is in each and every phone?" Bicks said.

"I don’t think the definition of code is API declarations," Page answered. "Phones have the Java language."

Bicks was determined to hammer on this point.

"Do you know whether or not that declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of those 37 API packages—do you know whether that's in each and every one of those 700,000 phones that you told your shareholders are 'lit up every day?'" said Bicks, raising his voice again.

"I've already testified that I know the APIs and declarations are in the phones," said Page. "They comprise the Java language."

"Now tell the jury how much you paid to Oracle for using that," snapped Bicks. "Have you paid anything to Oracle for using that intellectual property?"

"When Sun established Java, they established it as an open source thing," Page said. "I believe the APIs we used were pretty open. No, we didn't pay for the free and open things."

"So you didn't get a license?" Bicks asked.

"I'm not a lawyer," Page said. "I don't know the vagaries of licensing."

Page's testimony wasn't as weird as his 2012 presentation, in which he kept looking at the jury and smiling in a way that seemed forced. But there was still an obvious distance between his way of communicating and that of Bicks. Perhaps he simply wasn't going to play along, but on some level, Page seemed to view Bicks' accusatory formations as simply not making sense. What was the point of these nearly yelled, repetitive sentences? More than one answer began with some version of "I already said that."

“Free and open”

After about 20 minutes of questions, Bicks passed the witness.

Then, Google lawyer Robert Van Nest spoke to Page for about 10 minutes. He ran through Page's educational background, and Page spoke for a minute about the founding of Google. Then Van Nest moved into the negotiations with Sun. Was Google seeking a license for Java?

"Yes, and a broader deal around other things, like branding and cooperation," Page said.

"After discussions with Sun broke off, did you believe Google needed a license for APIs?" Van Nest asked.

"No, I did not believe that," Page said. "It was established industry practice that the API and just the headers of those things could be taken and re-implemented. [It must be done] very carefully, not to use any existing implementation of those systems. That's been done many, many times. I think we acted responsibly and carefully around these intellectual property issues."

"What was your understanding about the Java API declarations?" Van Nest asked.

"That they were free and open," said Page. "And Sun publicly supported Java and Android."

With that, Page was off the stand, escorted out into the hallway where his entourage awaited. The CEO's testimony had interrupted the end of a cross-examination of an economist working for Oracle, Adam Jaffe. After that, Google will put on a short rebuttal case consisting of two experts.

More from the Oracle v. Google trial: