Google's Android generated a net loss for the company in all four quarters of 2010 despite bringing in revenues of $97.7 million during the first quarter of that year.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup disclosed the Android financial data Thursday in conjunction with Google's ongoing patent and copyright infringement battle with Oracle. Alsup had previously sealed an internal 2011 Google document containing Android's 2010 profit and loss numbers, but he read certain portions aloud in front of the court.
Alsup did not divulge specific loss totals connected to Android, but confirmed the mobile operating system lost money throughout the 2010 period. "That adds up to a big loss for the whole year," Alsup said, according to Reuters.
Google does not report financial information about Android, which generates most of its revenues from mobile search and advertising. In January 2012, Google CEO Larry Page revealed that Android activations average 700,000 per day, adding that Google is still in "the early stages" of monetizing several new products, including the OS. "We see a lot of potential for us to make money on Android, and I think you'll see us increase that a lot over time," he said.
In October 2011, Google revealed its mobile revenue run rate was $2.5 billion, up from $1 billion a year ago.
Oracle alleges that approximately one-third of API packages in Android are "derivative of Oracle's copyrighted Java API packages" and related documents. Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems and its Java programming language in 2009. Oracle is seeking billions in damages as well as 15 percent of mobile advertising revenues generated across the Android platform.
The Google/Oracle trial is divided into three phases: Copyright liability, patent claims and damages. Late Thursday, a juror passed Alsup a note asking what would happen if the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict; Alsup sent the jury home for the day and asked them to continue deliberating on Friday. In the event of a deadlock, Alsup said that they might move on to hear evidence related to the patent phase, meaning another jury would be asked to resolve the copyright phase on a retrial.
