Yes, that's generally what smart people do when they're losing an argument: deny all terms and definitions. That's my point: once you render it all meaningless, it's easy to argue whatever you want, as Gruber demonstrates.

For example: But the bottom line is that they wanted to use these patents competitively.

Why is that the bottom line? That's in fact clearly not the bottom line, since it completely elides the distinction that Google is making. And calling it the bottom line is misdirection.

Some people seem to think that Android doesn’t really violate any existing worthy patents. That’s all just a bunch of bogus patents that never should have been granted, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are just tying up Android handset makers in court out of dishonest competitive spite. If that’s the case, then I suppose you can argue that Google’s pursuit of these patents was out of the goodness of their corporate heart.

But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose.

This is maybe the most disingenous part. The same could be said of anyone afraid of getting sued by patent trolls like Lodsys/Intellectual Vultures. 'If you're not really violating any "existing worthy" patents, then you have nothing to worry about.'

"But these are the laws we have." Indeed.