I think he’s saying that this suggests there was a legitimate case against him and they wanted to settle out of court because they didn’t think they would win.
Although, to be fair, it only really means that they didn’t think they would win. And that’s not the same as being, well, guilty.
> it only really means that they didn’t think they would win
Or that the suing party is so tiny that when Google wins and bankrupts them, they won't cover their own court costs or the salaries of the lawyers who burnt time defending Google's case, or that the evidence they'll present to win is more valuable to Google as a competitive secret, or or or.
There's actually a lot of reasons a company settles, and (as a long-time hobby observer of legal process) I'd caution against drawing a guilt-or-innocence conclusion from a settlement. Court is a bad place to be where neither party is in control of their destiny anymore, and a settlement just means one or both parties didn't want to be in court. That's all.
I guess they know quite well when they are guilty. And if a Google size company with unlimited legal power think they wouldn't win, it's a strong indication that they know that the case is so strong they have no chance of winning.
Although, to be fair, it only really means that they didn’t think they would win. And that’s not the same as being, well, guilty.