There's a big difference between revealing the details of illegal actions, which Snowden did, and revealing your opponent's private financial dealings which are not illegal.
Would you also support this if someone posted the routing information at the bottom of your personal checks? I mean, it's an "open secret" that's on every check. So no harm can come from the world at large knowing it.... right?
Google's actions are illegal though. It's not a government coverup, but Google is using misinformation as 'proof' they aren't guilty.
It's also noteworthy that this court case first revealed to the public the Android MADA agreement, a secret contract which has been at the center of a large number of antitrust suits around the globe. Had it not been revealed, it's unlikely many government entities would've started to look into it.
Have anything besides anecdotal evidence of that? Paying a company to use your search isn't anti-competitive. Google has competitors that can make the same (or better) offers. Google didn't prevent that behavior (in the way Microsoft did with Windows) because they can't... there are already alternatives.
Google is a monopoly, but it's not anti-competitive without actual evidence. And your personal opinion doesn't qualify.
How about the FTC's? Google had a paid shill in as the FTC Commissioner at the time (Joshua Wright), so the case was buried, but FTC staff investigated and recommended they go forward with a formal action. The EU is of course, already moving forward, as is a few other countries, who don't have Google employees working in their respective governments.
Oracle is able to disclose this to the court, just not to the world at large. So if what you say is true, the court (including appeals) is the proper place to raise that argument.
Would you also support this if someone posted the routing information at the bottom of your personal checks? I mean, it's an "open secret" that's on every check. So no harm can come from the world at large knowing it.... right?