So, since the developers of the technology were unable to market a product based on it, they should have just allowed everyone else to use their technology free of charge?

It's not really "their" technology in the first place. They didn't invent it - they failed to invent it. Then, that failure became grounds to sue the people who succeeded (and succeeded on their own merits, not on the backs of their prior work at all). There was no original contribution, and even if there was, it should have been thrown out on grounds of obviousness.

The only reason they were able to sell their patents to other companies was BECAUSE they had litigation value.

If its only value is litigation, it doesn't deserve to have a patent. If all a technology can produce is lawsuits, all it brings to the world is harm. Allowed to run its full course, this travesty will destroy the potential for innovation altogether. Currently, it is little but a way for lawyers to get rich off of scamming legitimate developers.

It's just as valid to develop a technology to market a product as it is to market the technology itself.

How about having an idea that you'd like to do something, failing miserably at doing so, and then suing anybody who succeeds at doing the same thing? Where's the validity in punishing success?

The woman's right to an abortion is irrelevant, here. The question of rights is not between him and her, but between him and the child. The only person who can absolve the child's right to support is the child himself. Now, several people have made the argument that the woman can "absolve the child's right" in a de facto way by aborting the fetus before it becomes a child. This "de facto" argument is bogus simply by being de facto. Plus, in an abortion (or any form of birth control) the required support becomes zero, whereas in the argued-for scenario, the required support is in full effect, and just one person is absolved, leaving the burden on the other parent (and, quite probably, society).

It's important to remember that the right to an abortion is not a right to "birth control" per se, it's not a real right to interfere with someone else's biology or finances, it's instead strictly a right to one's own biology. Any "implied rights" are non-existent.

A proper metaphor would be for a man - let's say brightstar, since he's actually made a closely parallel argument in the past - to claim that since a woman has the right to deny him sex, he should have the right to deny them something in return, and go around slapping chains on any woman who dares to turn him down.

Most of the arguments saying men should have the right to opt out seem to have a decidedly right-leaning voice to them. And, one of the arguments these voices are making over and over again is that, unlike her male partner, the woman has all of these "choices," like abortion. But, if these same right-leaning voices had their way, abortion would be illegal, and the man would be stuck paying child support anyway. So, what the hell is the problem? The guy is going to pay either way.

You're missing the point. These people want the woman to have to have the child and the man to not have to pay a dime. THAT'S the end goal. "Fairness" is only invoked (in a severely twisted sense) to advance towards an inherently unfair outcome.