Not sure why you'd say that. I think Oracle's arguments are completely ridiculous. They're arguing that it's illegal to clone an API, something that has been done repeatedly by every player in the tech world imaginable over four decades now and has enriched us all. It's obscene.
That said, I think it's true that Oracle's slides have the better evidence. There are all sort of (admittedly out of context) incriminating statement from the Google people which indicate that Google really wanted a Sun license and tried really hard to get one. That certainly looks bad, but again I don't think it speaks to the underlying law.
Edit: I should point out there's a flip side here too. The fact that Sun wasn't willing to deal despite Google's attempts can be an argument that they weren't negotiating in good faith. If that was the case, then there are no damages to award. Obviously we don't have any juicy emails or quotes from discovery in Google's slides, so there's no way to know.
Really? Google's slides include numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and Oracle saying that everything Google did was fine and basically reiterating Google's core arguments, which seems pretty damning to Oracle's case. On the other hand, I don't see how the fact that Google would have liked a partnership with Sun but couldn't work out a deal demonstrates any wrongdoing.
Not so much wrongdoing as bad faith. If Google offered Sun a good financial deal (they might have: certainly they had a lot of cash) but Sun walked away anyway (because they wanted to preserve control of the platform, say), then that puts a pretty firm cap on the damages Oracle can be awarded. If Sun represented to Google internally that a deal was likely, and then yanked the rug out at the last minute, then that's straight up bad faith.
Well, yeah, but is that really necessary? They demonstrate intent, they support the accuracy of Google's view of the situation, and I'm pretty sure they'll make it harder for Oracle to paint Google's actions as tortious. It's similar to how you'd have a hard time suing somebody for injuring you if you admitted you jumped in front of their car to get money out of them — that's not a contract either, but it won't help your case. If even Oracle believes that what Google is doing is OK and doesn't constitute infringement, then that paints them as rent-seekers rather than an injured party.
-Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java. So they need to present evidence that they have those. Any statement from an employee, even from the CEO, is useless if there are no legally binding contract or license.
-Oracle only has to prove and convince the jury that Google willfully and knowingly ignored required licensing agreements. So they can present emails and quotes from employees and executives and the emails alone can do a lot of damage.
Juries decide on facts, though, not laws. They can determine whether or not Google thought a license was required, but it's the judge (or more likely an appellate court) who will decide whether it actually was.
Ah, I'm thinking along the lines of a layman sitting in the jury box, not as a software engineer. Presentation of potentially self-incriminating emails that clearly called out the need to license Java and the desire to cleanup the 'J word' work differently on the average person, compared to arguing about how ludicrous the expectation to not clone API is in the real world. Maybe I should have used evidence instead of arguments though - thanks for that.
I think there's enough merit in both sides' arguments, at least enough to make me unsure about which way the decision will go. It's sad that lawyers/judges and non-technical folks will decide, but maybe that is the fairest way to deal with such things?
That said, I think it's true that Oracle's slides have the better evidence. There are all sort of (admittedly out of context) incriminating statement from the Google people which indicate that Google really wanted a Sun license and tried really hard to get one. That certainly looks bad, but again I don't think it speaks to the underlying law.
Edit: I should point out there's a flip side here too. The fact that Sun wasn't willing to deal despite Google's attempts can be an argument that they weren't negotiating in good faith. If that was the case, then there are no damages to award. Obviously we don't have any juicy emails or quotes from discovery in Google's slides, so there's no way to know.