[giantrobot]

> why are technologies for supposed public standards patentable in the first place

Because they were developed in private by the stakeholders and then submitted as part of the standardization process. Money did get spent. At the core of the situation is multiple private companies all contribute technology towards a standard that a larger group of companies can implement. Without the option of license fees there's little incentive for companies to invest in developing these technologies.

Part of the standardization process is making the patent licenses available at a "fair and reasonable" rate (FRAND). When the patent holders have large patent pools of their own they cross-license in lieu or in addition to paying actual license fees.

[mschuster91]

Governments could also push for these standards to be developed at universities or pay companies to develop them, to be then openly released.

[giantrobot]

Universities aren't always better than private companies with respect to patents and licensing. Sometimes they're much worse because there's no real reciprocity of licensing.

Governments could set up national labs to develop communication technologies but they're not going to be competitive with private companies pay wise. If you're a radio engineer you can be stuck on a government schedule salary or get a nice six figure "Tech Company" salary and fat stock options. Why work at the government lab when your same skills will get to twice as much at Apple or Qualcomm?

I'm not arguing for the status quo but the alternatives aren't necessarily better for the public nor the engineers doing the work.