There's no principle in capitalism, nor law, that would require(!) you to level false criminal accusations against competitors. The opposite is true. If Google's case were found to be entirely without merit, and intentionally so, they'd be liable for criminal prosecution themselves.
Even the whole you-must-everyting-to-increase-shareholder-value-shtick is mostly a myth, by the way(mo).
An accusation with even a tiny bit of evidence supporting it can rightly be the basis of a conclusion of fact when the standard (as is generally the case in civil court) is preponderance of the evidence, and no evidence is presented on the other side.
has not been demonstrated yet. Only the accusation. Furthermore, there's been no judgement.
No kidding. However, the present issues with a request for a preliminary injunction I require the court weighing, based on the information provided by the parties, a number of factors, including likelihood of success on the merits. As the "preliminary" part of the name hints, that's not a final assessment of the evidence, however deliberately wotholding exculpatory evidence now has adverse consequences.
This is such a classic justice tale I'm sure it's memorialized in fable. You get accused of witchcraft: well that's weird, you sure have a lot of herbs around, huh? (bay leaves and garlic) What's that giant kettle for? (making soup. With bay leaves and garlic) Etc. The mere accusation can turn normal things into another incriminating "fact" when that is just not the case.