I think there is some middle ground to find. As of right now, looking at audio codecs on Play Store, there is some status quo which is IMO good (but it requires to actually be written somewhere, otherwise shit will happen): Opensource applications that are not shipped with devices but are available "on the internet", or some app store aren't threatened by patents holder.<p>(Source: I'm a contributor of opensource NOVA Video Player, which was previously closed-source Archos Video Player)<p>As a company, I think that paying for standards is fair, but it must be reasonable. Reasonable implies 1. clear rules which never blocks innovation [1][1b] 2. reasonable fee [2], 3. freedom of using whichever implementation of that standard I want, 4. If fee has been paid on HW, then any SW on that HW is allowed to use that license<p>[1] Some vendors will sell their licenses exclusively on hardware, so if you sell an app, you're screwed<p>[1b] Some vendors will require you to make different SKUs whether you enable it or not. What if user need to enable it later?<p>[2] Sisvel's AV1 license is 15c, which is imo fair for a 200$ HW, but not for a 1$ ad-less video app. That being said, I have no idea how to actually make it fair. (Note that as I understand it, Sisvel's AV1 license is for HW, not SW, no idea how it works for SW)
Is this provoked by the recent investigation by the EU into AOM?[0] The biggest source of patent declarations for ISO is MPEG; video standards are the one part of software development where you really, really do need to worry about paying patent license fees.<p>Everywhere else, the only thing software developers are worried about are patent trolls, who usually don't have enforceable patents, and rely on the cost of litigation alone as a way to extract licensing fees. Oddly enough, video standards <i>used</i> to be relatively free of this nonsense; but the actual patent revenues have been falling for a long time now, so all the patent owners are getting antsy and forming overlapping pools to try and make implementers pay more for the same patents.<p>There's also the fact that ISO charges to purchase copies of their standards, but that only matters for people who want certifications. The actual standards aren't encumbered by any copyright ISO might hold on the document.<p>[0] For context: The EU competition regulators believe AOM may have bullied people into royalty-free licensing. This could either be read as "Google screwed up their legal research" or the EU deciding that reciprocal royalty-free patent licensing itself needs to die.
Predict the following, higher inflation will cause central banks to raise interest rates to fight inflation. Higher interest rates will stop easy central bank and founder exit money flow to fund capital for startups. Startups without easy access to new rounds of capital will have to lay of staff.<p>Engineers from previous startups will cause a resurge in opensource projects. Stable companies with solid profit track records will become popular to work for. As will working as own consultants freelancers writing open source.<p>Patent free standards, open source and open hardware will become very popular. Trends being driven by more environmentally aware consumers and credit access.
On a more general note, I wonder how much enforcement of patents will be rendered moot by two trends: 1) the rise of algorithms (which can't be patented) in replacing physical IP, and 2) the rising practice internationally of IP theft, esp in China?<p>AFAIK, China has paid no price (legally) to date for stealing tech from others and disregarding patents/copyrights. What does that bode for IP enforcement if the #2 economy on Earth largely ignores it? Does this suggest we can expect enforcement of IP protection to fade everywhere someday soon?
I absolutely hate to see consortiums patent and license out standards. I sort of get it if it’s a company patenting it, but a consortium should be separate from the business side of it.
The title states that patent-free is the future, but the article only says that it <i>should</i> be the future. I don't see that happening, as companies would rather pool their resources and make a closed standard (where they each have both a stake and some control) than use an open standard where their competitors may have zero stake, and the governance is provided by essentially whoever shows up and wants to govern.
Patent law is going to get really ridiculous with all this AI IP generation<p>The general ethos of most hacker SWEs I know building cool shit is: just build, if I get sued, it's a speeding ticket (That some VC will give me money to hire some lawyers to deal with).
With standards the question is "Do you really want the expense and hassle of a patent?" The answer is of course hell no. If you make a patented standard now you have two standards.