I can't imagine Oracle would have a problem with getting to say they were right, and getting a boatload of cash, without all the bother of the Supreme Court.
And doesn't intentional bad representation have weird and costly externalities, like reputation damage for the lawyer?
I love the image of Google and Oracle behaving like gangsters, but I'm having trouble imagining it being this sloppy.
Well, it would certainly be much safer not to present such a comprehensive written argumentation and hope that you can somehow sabotage all that (and all the written arguments from friendly amici, etc., by a clumsy presentation at oral argument.) I think "highly successsful Supreme Court lawyer doing his best has a bad day at oral argument, perhaps in part due to the unusual format" is more likely than some kind of "deliberately throw the case by trying to screw up oral argument" thing.
I had the same thought (that Google is intentionally throwing the case) when I read over the Google lawyer's approach, there's no way the guy is that out of touch.
The Google of today is not the Google that started this case all those years ago and the Google of today is working alot harder to create its own walled gardens. They have alot more to gain from suing the pants off anyone who tries to interoperate with them, than they stand to lose from a few $billion payoff to Oracle.
Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread
How does the effect where everyone feels they are slightly closer to about the 70th percentile in performance at a task than they are (and more the farther away from that their actual performance is) have any bearing here?
Or do you mean the D-K effect of popular legend where people who are completely incompetent think they are hypercompetent, rather than the actual effect of that name?
Is your speculation that Google had this sudden realization between the filing of the various written arguments (including the standard of review for fair use memo on August 7) after fighting this case for years (all of which they've had a similar position), or do you think their written arguments are consistent with this theory?
That might well be true. However, I'd be more inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor[0] to this, as it's usually closer to the truth.
