Wired on "Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case"

[Steve Schear]

At 09:14 AM 9/20/2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
>Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons.
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
>
>Of course, the fact that Lucent has been in shit shape financially must 
>have nothing to do with what is effectively a state-sponsored protection 
>of intellectual theft and profiting by Lucent (merely keeping the tech 
>under wraps would have been possible in a closed-doors session. Remember 
>that connectors can easily cost $50 per or more, so these guys were really 
>ripped off and Lucent probably made out quite well.)

[Cross posted from another list....]

Ian G <iang at systemics.com> wrote:
What I don't understand about that case is that the
precedent already exists.  If a defendent declines
to defend by supplying documents then the judge does
not force them to do so in a civil case, instead the
award goes against them.

What is not clear is why the judge awarded in the
favour of the government.  By not supplying files,
they clearly indicated they were using the patent.
And even that wasn't ever in doubt.  He should have
just awarded summarily for the patent owners and
that would have been that.

And, it was only for a measly half million.  By
saving a half million in patent fees, Lucent and
the USG have reduced their reputation for fair
dealing, had the whole case blow up in their faces
and now we're all poking around looking for how
the patent was used by the _Jimmy Carter_....