> On the other side, they could argue that it's like a human learning how to code over a decade of looking at the internet And that would make sense and it wou

> On the other side, they could argue that it's like a human learning how to code over a decade of looking at the internet And that would make sense and it would be argued on its own merit. The judge/jury will decide if this argument is correct and legal. But the article implies that there are lawyers and infringers out there who are arguing that they could not have possibly afforded the cost of not infringing, so they were justified in their infringement. Since when did the massive cost of avoiding infringement become a valid reason to carry on with infringement? This seems just plain absurd by common sense. How do lawyers and infringers make this argument? How is it even entertained in court? What am I missing?