The usual arguments for someone to settle a legal case are avoiding the costs of litigation, and a potentially ruinous award. From Google's perspective, though

The usual arguments for someone to settle a legal case are avoiding the costs of litigation, and a potentially ruinous award. From Google's perspective, though, these may not be operating the way they usually do. Google, and particularly Android, are getting patent suits from all quarters, and have to think about the cost of all that litigation, not just this case. So, they might view the best outcome in this case as the one which is most likely to deter the next guy. Quietly settling for a low nine-figure sum is unlikely to achieve that; quiet settlements for that amount risk them having patent trolls lined up out the door from Mountain View to Gilroy. And after Oracle came in initially demanding billion-dollar damages up front plus a share of ongoing Android revenues, even that might not be enough for Oracle to "save face". (Edit: yes, I'm aware this is no longer strictly a patent case, but that's how it started, patents were an issue at trial, and once it goes to court, both parties are always throwing whatever they have at the wall.) Also, at this point, the prospects of a large award against Google are (one hopes!) minimal --- they could only come after a reversal on appeal. And, in addition to Alsup's trial court ruling, they can count on a flood of amicus briefs pointing out (correctly, IMHO) how reversal would be calamitous for the industry. So, that's a gamble Google might want to take. And Oracle has no choice. So, a settlement might be in the interest of the larger community, but I'm not sure either party would likely see it in their own private interest.