The evidence suggests that they can’t come up with a better analogy. Perhaps there are legal principles at play that prevent them from using something seemingl

The evidence suggests that they can’t come up with a better analogy. Perhaps there are legal principles at play that prevent them from using something seemingly better. They are smart people. I think a better a question or observation would be, “What prevents them from using X as an analogy?”. Or maybe the case isn’t so clear cut in favor of Google that its lawyers have to traverse a minefield of legal traps and this is the best they can come up with.