I think technical people are better equipped to appreciate how important a seemingly small engineering difference can be. You have to spend a lot of hours wrest

I think technical people are better equipped to appreciate how important a seemingly small engineering difference can be. You have to spend a lot of hours wrestling with a complex topic before you realize how hard those innovations are to come by, and how big of a deal they are. Another tragic example of "tyranny of the tech-illiterate" was the Honeywell v Sperry Rand case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell,_Inc._v._Sperry_Rand_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell,_Inc._v._Sperry_Rand.... One of the rulings re-attributed the invention of the computer to John Atanasoff based on his ABC machine. The judge ruled "close enough" despite a litany of hugely substantial differences between the ABC (basically an electronic calculator with a primitive electromechanical "memory"), and the ENIAC (the trunk of all modern computing). Like the Zenimax case, the ruling appeared to be based more on the court's intuitions about the circumstantial evidence than the actual technical facts. I suppose you make the best judgment you can. It's just too bad we can't think of a way to select people who are capable of better judgments.