Quote from: frodocooper on April 07, 2018, 05:14:22 PM

*Snip*
The issue here instead is that should any company choose to leave the BDPL, they remain obliged to license their patents to BDPL users for free, while the BDPL users would then be allowed to impose additional terms on the leaving companies for their continued use of BDPL patents. This isn't just unfair, it's extortion.

I completely agree with what you are saying, was just speculating on ways things could play out. The overall contract implied here doesn't represent a balanced trade, nor do the implications of backing out of the agreement hold a fair "punishment" for exiting the agreement. These items would have to be addressed in detail before entering the agreement.

I can't imagine why any company would sign into this agreement anyways but if they were so inclined; there would need to be a level of openness prior to releasing all your patents. For example this Asicboost, it's still early but given what I've been reading it still isn't performing as expected (Though not enough samples are in the wild to confirm this). If it doesn't live up to expectation any other party should be able to walk away with their patent rights.

Prior to openly pledging support there should also be a set fee structure in place for what you would have to pay to use any of the competitors patents. At the same time each of these companies should be able to limit how long you have free access to their "original" patents should they walk away; as well as you retaining free access to all patents you brought to the table in the first place.

Overall it's a terrible system set up to create an oligarchy instead of using competition to drive innovation. These companies will dictate among themselves the marketshare for each and will pummel any small outside producer who try's to break into the system.

Can you imagine these companies locked into this for the long haul this early into the life of Bitcoin?