This theory is so wildly off from what my lawyer friends have told me about the case (including one who has 5+ years of IP law experience) They are mostly in a

This theory is so wildly off from what my lawyer friends have told me about the case (including one who has 5+ years of IP law experience) They are mostly in agreement that Google had enough to win the case but that they likely had the worry that juries are always unpredictable and you really never know what will happen. They seem to believe that the thing that Google cared about the most was restricting Uber's usage of the stolen technology. They believe that Uber felt they had a decent chance of losing so they mutually agreed to setting, giving Google what they wanted (restriction of the technology usage). Once that was offered Google immediately moved to settle since that was what they wanted from the outset and any additional cash or destruction of Uber's image would have been beyond their needs.