Google attempts settlement while Oracle doesn't budge

Google has made an attempt to offer a percentage of Android revenue to Oracle, which rebuffed the offer.
Written by Rachel King, Contributor

After a magistrate court judge tried to bring Oracle and Google back to the negotiation table again to work out a potential settlement for their ongoing legal battle, it almost looked like there could have been a deal on Wednesday.

Nevertheless, that April 16 trial start date at the U.S District Court of Northern California is looking more and more likely.

Google reportedly proposed an offer to Oracle that consisted of the following points, according to Reuters.

First, Google offered to pay Oracle up to $2.8 million in damages over two patents in question. Furthermore, Google also offered a deal of 0.5 percent from Android revenue for one patent through December 2012 and 0.015 percent on a second patent through April 2018.

Oracle is suing Google over Java-related patents and technology that appear on the Android mobile operating system. Google’s lawyers have repeatedly responded by discussing Google’s previous relationship with Sun Microsystems, Java’s creator now owned by Oracle. Google argued that Sun was a big fan of Android from the start, seeing it as a tool to "spread news and word about Java."

Nevertheless, Oracle has reportedly refused the proposal as a low-ball offer.

This all might come as a bit surprising to some followers of the case. Just recently, the patent suit was cut down, and it looked like Oracle would be lucky to extract as much as $100 million from Google in this suit.

But perhaps Oracle still has a chance to win a lot more from Google -- as well as a possible injunction on Android products.

Nevertheless, after many setbacks and proposed trial dates (including October 2011 and March 2012), the two Silicon Valley heavyweights are likely still going to battle it out in court in just a few weeks.

Update: Note that this offer is a stipulation for damages if (and only if) Oracle prevails on patent infringement.

Editorial standards