VIKTOR SCHRECK: Your Honor, when a company takes a legal position it is never based on the innate rightness of a particular legal precedent. It is, rather, based on the idea that the company needs legal protection against something that would be injurious to its well-being.
VIKTOR SCHRECK: Therefore, any finding in favor of that company should not be seen as the establishment of precedent on legal grounds, but as the establishment of the precedent that the company’s well-being is in itself a valid legal defense.
VIKTOR SCHRECK: In previous cases, we have argued that vague similarities between processes are enough to prove patent infringement because the well-being of our company demanded it.
VIKTOR SCHRECK: In this case, we are arguing that vague similarities between processes ARE NOT enough to prove patent infringement because the well-being of our company demands it.
VIKTOR SCHRECK: Because the precedent we argue from is based on the well-being of our company, and not the specific legal issue at hand, our position is and has always been absolutely consistent.
JUDGE: Which is?
VIKTOR SCHRECK: We want to do what we want to do. And we don’t want anyone else to do it.