I think the short answer is 64...as in $64 billion in cash reserves that Google has available. They can fight a very intimidating legal war, and have already done so on many occasions. US Civil Court cases are, in truth, a matter of who has the most to pay the legal fees, and how long they can financially support the legal process.
Google steals, and steals a lot. They prey on the weak, which I will define as small companies or individuals with inventions that they do not have resources to move forward. Google offers to help, then steals.
Google does not want their unethical practices exposed. However, only other major companies (Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) have prevailed against them, and they likely expected to quickly dispatch MAXD. As weak as MAXD looks on paper, Google likely never even considered settlement.
The cases in Germany have changed that. In the USA, Google's attornies can easily push a case out for five years or more as part of their forcing plaintiffs to give up the fight. They do not have that option in Germany, so that has likely forced them to take the MAXD case seriously. Most importantly, Google screwed up and exposed their theft, left plenty of evidence confirming it was a theft, and they know they can't win if they go to trial.
I am confident Google withheld any settlement discussion while waiting to see if MAXD could come up with the money to finance the legal case in Germany (Germany does not allow legal firms to work on contingencies.) MAXD only recently confirmed that they have done so.
Google now may be finally ready to entertain a settlement. I believe it is the best business decision for them. In a typical Google settlement, they will require confidentiality to a degree that the causes for the lawsuit "disappear". All parties associated with the lawsuit will agree to deny any discussion of what happened before, during, and after the lawsuit. It will simply cease to exist. With that, Google can sweep the events under the rug, and ideally prevent other victims of Google from taking action against them. A settlement can include an aquisition or exclusive license of of the technology that is imbedded in Google products, and drawing revenues from license fees. This will prevent the people supplied by Google from being forced to pay license fees to MAXD, which would expose Google's theft.
With that said, the opposition to settle quickly may come from, (1) Google's legal firms wanting to milk the litigation for long term revenues, and won't encourage settlement, (2)Google's principal's may take this case personally and seek to punish MAXD somehow through abuse of the legal system, (3)Google may feel the German case can be lost with only minimal impact, and the USA and possible global actions can be stalled or defeated (Google is attempting to change patent laws to allow them to get away with their thefts, having infiltrated the US patent office and gained favored status in the White House and Congress through campaign donations,) (4)Google may feel settling this case might open doors to more lawsuits from other victims, so it's defeat would be considered to have a needed benefit for them.
I'm sure there's more possibilities. Let's hope Google is aware of the potential risks of their theft's public exposure, that they're open to settlement and/or acquisition, and that MAXD and they can come to an agreement on an amount quickly.
AI
