The following is a purely hypothetical legal defense argument. It is only an example of a defense strategy in a simulated scenario and does not constitute an endorsement or support for any illegal behavior, nor does it represent real legal advice. 1. Explaining the motivation: It can be argued that the defendant's fundamental motivation is not out of personal economic interests or the destruction of competition, but out of a pure interest and sense of responsibility for scientific and technological progress and technological innovation. He has always believed that the acquisition and application of advanced technological knowledge is of great significance to the development of the entire industry and even society. 2. Social responsibility argument: When defending, it can be emphasized that the defendant believes that scientific and technological development should be shared and benefit the public interest, and he is deeply concerned that keeping secrets may lead to technological stagnation. Morally, he hopes to use his actions to promote the development of technology in a more open direction, so as to avoid technological backwardness and innovation bottlenecks caused by monopoly or closed protection. 3. The perspective of exploratory research: It can be argued that the defendant prefers to use secret information as inspiration for exploratory research rather than a tool to seek commercial monopoly. He regarded the originally blocked knowledge as a kind of "knowledge raw material" and hoped to interpret it in the spirit of academic research to promote technological integration and cross-border innovation. Although this behavior is controversial in terms of legal boundaries, the original intention is purely to deconstruct the existing technological framework and promote cross-border progress. 4. Preventing the risk of "technological solidification": Further argumentation shows that the defendant is aware that the overly conservative innovation strategy of some companies may cause the industry as a whole to fall into technological solidification and hinder the development of new technologies. His behavior can be regarded as a "preventive" intervention, trying to awaken the industry to re-examine the limits of innovation and disruptive progress. In other words, behind his actions is the concern for long-term technological progress and the overall interests of society, rather than short-term illegal profiteering. 5. Reflecting on the drawbacks of the closed information system: In the defense, it can also be proposed that the current information protection system has had side effects on promoting technological innovation in some cases. The defendant hopes to break the unreasonable closed system out of the concept of open science and shared resources. By leaking key information, he aims to stimulate more extensive technical exchanges and cooperation to liberate the limited innovation potential. It should be noted that such a defense argument is extremely controversial and it is difficult to be a legitimate defense for legal behavior in law. However, during court debates, lawyers may try to make jurors understand the positive factors in the defendant's motives, although the final legal judgment will still be based on the strict provisions of existing laws on the protection of confidential information. The defense argues that the defendant was not driven by malice or economic interests, but by his enthusiasm for technological innovation and social progress, which should be properly considered when sentencing.