>
	In response to "The case comes down to this" reader Lee Davis Cumbie, Esq. writes:

I agree that the outcome of the Microsoft case is of the utmost importance; however, I have the distinct feeling it is for different reasons.

As an attorney and legal technology consultant, I can state without any fear of contravention that attorneys, and therefore judges, are not generally equipped to understand high tech cases. The need for specialty courts, as there are for a variety of other specialty areas, is dramatic and will only increase. By allowing courts with only passing understanding of the underlying technology to rule on such pivotal cases undermines the special role of the appellate judiciary in integrating the law into modern public policy.

For example, modern courts have taken a vastly different viewpoint on antitrust law. There is nothing illegal or improper about monopolies or a lack of competition. The crux of original antitrust law was whether a monopoly or a lack of competition is being used to harm or damage the consumer. In this regard, Microsoft comes out pretty well, as there was no evidence of price gouging, inflated costs, or any other damage to the consumer. However, today the watchword has become competition. Supposedly, the lack of competition is always bad. This is a ridiculous position. Many monopolies have existed, with and without regulation, for decades without any antitrust implications.

The real question is how long an evolving standard can, or should, be protected by intellectual property laws and whether regulation should be enacted. I, for one, have no desire to return to the days when I needed a matrix to figure out software and hardware compatibilities. However, to allow Microsoft, or anyone else, to shield themselves with archaic intellectual property timetables is almost as bad. Reexamination of these timetables and possible regulation, to allow access to the source code of the standard, is essential to prevent stagnation or pointless competition.

Lee Davis Cumbie, Esq.