If that were the case the number of PEOPLE's personal data would be a far more compelling number. 100 laptops worth of data may be equivalent to the servers but they still don't represent the only thing that should matter: innocent's people data being unlawfully searches/seized.
Lawyers are constrained, in that they cannot knowingly tell outright lies, and any intentional misrepresentations they may make are limited by the forbearance of the judge.
I'm quite certain that lawyers for the defense would have preferred to say that the seizure and search of the servers was the equivalent of kicking down the doors of 100 homes in your neighborhood, and taking 100 of your neighbors' laptops, merely on the suspicion that they might have unlicensed copies of movies and music on them. And your neighbors are good, hardworking people who already have piles of legitimately purchased CDs and DVDs next to their laptops. They care for their cute babies, and refrain from kicking puppies and kittens at all times. The smell of fresh-baked apple pies frequently wafts across your lawn from their windowsills, along with the sounds of the neighborhood kids playing sandlot baseball. But why would a wookiee live on Endor? It makes no sense!
At that time, the judge reminds the defense that Kim Dotcom is the accused, and you stop that crap right now, or you'll get sanctioned.
> Lawyers are constrained, in that they cannot knowingly tell outright lies
Lawyers may have greater professional consequences if they are caught knowingly telling outright lies in certain contexts, but it is absolutely not the case that they cannot knowingly tell outright lies.
Let's just say that they cannot expect to win a case if it depends upon contradicting established facts. Much of a lawyer's work is therefore preventing the inconvenient facts from being established in their case.
