Here's the section in full:
Judge suspects Google of having preferred "to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price"
In connection with the theories Google presented, the judge refers to one (even in a headline) as "Google's Soviet-style negotiation", defined as "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable". In that context, the judge suspects the following attitude:
"Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price."
That kind of statement reflects extremely unfavorably on Google. It's exactly the kind of basis on which the judge might consider an injunction a highly appropriate remedy, and a tripling of the base damages amount, too.
One of the most interesting passages in today's order quotes from an October 2005 email by Google's Android boss Andy Rubin:
"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"
If a jury sees that statement (and if there is a trial, then the jury will see it for sure), Google has a very serious problem. And "very serious" may be an understatement. Moreover, a statement like that showing up in publicly accessible court documents now may cause significant concern among many of Google's Android partners (including, but not limited to, device makers).
Yeah. That's pretty damning.
Of course, if it makes one of the parties look particularly bad it *must* be trolling, right?
So what's the "trolling" part? The OP's highlighting of the facts or the author's legitimate assessment of another piece of the mounting evidence that Google's OS is an agglomeration of infringements, with a shady attitude to match?
