I know that's how a common law system works, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying that, for someone who's been involved in hundreds of these suits, it shouldn't be hard to provide a more relevant or more recent analogy, preferably one involving intellectual property or computer crimes, or both. He should also be able to cite the statutes or rulings that provide the legal groundwork for his theory of negligent contributory infringement. (If the SCOTUS has already says that contributory infringement must be willful, what provides the cause of action against an unknowing enabler of infringement?)

His example of negligence in a case where there was a contractual business relationship that was not satisfactorily fulfilled doesn't seem very convincing up against a Supreme Court ruling that contributory infringement must be willful. It sounds more like a way to be on the losing side of a summary judgement.

The fact that the defendant can perjure himself is really never a good reason to invent a new offense.