If Oracle offers Google and its ecosystem a reasonable deal, in which Google publicly acknowledges that Oracle's patents are valid, the matter will be resolved -- and Oracle's patents will be stronger than ever, presumptively, because they were legally tested by a dispute with a deep-pocketed adversary who eventually agreed to license them.
Compare also: when first sued by the Author's Guild in a class action over book-scanning, Google originally argued they had a fair-use right to scan/index the books without prior permission. When a settlement deal favorable to Google's continued operations was proffered, Google stopped fighting for the general fair use principle, and instead has been defending the benefits of their settlement agreement. [1] What should others who want to scan/index books do? Now, Google suggests they should get explicit permission beforehand, using the precedents Google set. [2]
I don't blame Google for making necessary practical legal compromises for their mission, but I also don't put them up on a pedestal, as if they were a disinterested champion who will establish equal rights for everyone. They'll pursue their organizational interests, as with any other ambitious organization.
[1] http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1828
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09brin.html?pagewa...
"If Google Books is successful, others will follow. And they will have an easier path: this agreement creates a books rights registry that will encourage rights holders to come forward and will provide a convenient way for other projects to obtain permissions. While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support."