[magicalist]

The entire relevant text from the email is "After talking with people here, it sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn’t be advisable for us on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we’re open to discussing other similar opportunities in the future."

That does not back up your claims. Humorously, the article you linked to, though confusing Novell and Nortel, clearly points out that no context is given for any prior communication (which would be necessary for evaluating your claims of "this was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms"), and gives yet another reasonable argument for why google wouldn't want to agree to a joint bid:

"The search firm might have felt bound by the terms of its "stalking horse" bid, which would let it break up any existing patent licensing terms if it won; it would never have had that option in the winning group as companies with Nortel patent licenses, like Microsoft, would have insisted on keeping them intact."

[sunchild]

I agree. There are many reasons why Google may have rejected the offer to bid jointly – and the offer's terms aren't clear at all. Also, posting private intercompany emails is unprofessional, even in response to a misleading tweet from your competitor. Even less professional is the "divide and conquer" positioning that characterizes Google's lawyers as lacking internal communication/coordination. Frankly, I get a bad smell from either side in this latest Twitter slapfight between MSFT and GOOG.