Why do they pay lawyers??

If you read the first two paragraphs of the Brief on behalf of the Respondents you will ask yourself 'Why do they pay lawyers?'.

The opening reasoning states that "That contention is foreclosed by Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), which held that no secondary liability may attach to distribution of an article of commerce, even with "constructive" knowledge of infringing use, as long as it is capable of significant noninfringing uses.

Yes I do agree that was said in Sony - of couse in that case the non-infringing uses did result from time shifting a licenced broadcast which implied by the broadcast falls straight onto the Video tape where as Grokster users couldnt share thier licences for all the world due to the architecture of the software.

But the court went on to make an exception of 'Active inducement'. It does not appear logical to deny the existence of this exception or to try and sweep it under the vicarious liability of copyright infringement.

Oh well - they won in the lower courts - I wonder if they will win in the Supreme Court as well.