If that small startup had presented the case similarly to the 200 in-house lawyers, probably yes, he would have.
The 200 lawyers aren't some magic wand you wave at judges, the 200 lawyers work together to come up with a fantastic argument for whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.
The fact that it was Google may have made the judge realize that this is the kind of thing that could change the world more quickly than if it had been a no-name startup, but Google's track record of blowing the doors off of innovation is something they've earned, not bought (necessarily).
I just don't think it's really a criticism of Google that they won this case at all.
And your claim about the Judge deciding this differently because it was Google rather than Aaron Swartz Jr. All plaintiffs are supposed to be equal under the law, so whether it's Google or LoneCoder the ruled result should be the same.
Starting to understand how the world got to be as f'd up as it is reading these HN comments...
The 200 lawyers aren't some magic wand you wave at judges, the 200 lawyers work together to come up with a fantastic argument for whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.
The fact that it was Google may have made the judge realize that this is the kind of thing that could change the world more quickly than if it had been a no-name startup, but Google's track record of blowing the doors off of innovation is something they've earned, not bought (necessarily).
I just don't think it's really a criticism of Google that they won this case at all.