[phh]

Based on your comment, it seems you're assuming the people writing the standard don't intent to step on patents, but that's wrong.

Patents on standards is largely how standards are financed, by company who will then recoup their research spent on that via those patents.

I think that RAND patents and with the list of patents published alongside the standard are an acceptable compromise.

In France for the equivalent on ATSC 3.0, we standardized on Dolby audio (AC4), which is NOT available as RAND at all (and is stupid for many other reasons). So well, we've put ourselves in a worst situation.

[SenAnder]

> Patents on standards is largely how standards are financed, by company who will then recoup their research spent on that via those patents.

Thankfully those companies have a sense of fair play, and wouldn't dream of charging more than they spent on research, or of using patented standard to stifle competition for anyone not in their industry group.

[toast0]

In my market, ATSC 3 broadcasters are also using AC4, so same deal here. Of course, AC3 in ATSC 1 was a licensing coup too.

[anordal]

Whether you seek royalties or not, you only want to step on your own patents (or the participating parties, who can agree on licensing), not a patent troll (non-participating entity) whose biggest motivation is to sit on the fence until a deep-pocket company comes along.

[pentagrama]

I didn't know that, eg the W3C patents the HTML standards that they create?