The point is, if there had been no incentives to develop codecs, there would have been no MPEG. Other people would have stepped into the void and sometimes did, e.g. RealVideo, but without legal IP protection the codecs would just have been entirely undocumented and heavily obfuscated, relying on tamper-proofed ASICs much faster.
The firewall of patents exist precisely because digital video is a way to shakedown the route media would have to travel to get to the end user.
Codecs are not, "harder than" compilers, yet the field of compilers was blown completely open by GCC. Capital didn't see the market opportunity because there wasn't the same possibility of being a gatekeeper for so much attention and money.
The patents aren't because it is difficult, the patents are there because they can extract money from the revenue streams.
Modern video codecs are harder than compilers. You have to have good ASIC development expertise to do them right, for example, which you don't need for compilers. It's totally feasible for a single company to develop a leading edge compiler whereas you don't see that in video codecs, historically they've been collaborations.
Hardware vendors don't benefit from the patent pools. They usually get nothing from them, and are burdened by having to pass per-unit licensing costs on to their customers.
It's true that designing an ASIC-friendly codec needs special considerations, and benefits from close collaboration with hardware vendors, but it's not magic. The general constraints are well-known to codec designers (in open-source too). The commercial incentives for collaboration are already there — HW vendors will profit from selling the chipsets or licensing the HW design.
The patent situation is completely broken. The commercial codecs "invent" coding features of dubious utility, mostly unnecessary tweaks on old stuff, because everyone wants to have their patent in the pool. It ends up being a political game, because the engineering goal is to make the simplest most effective codec, but the financial incentive is to approve everyone's patented add-ons regardless of whether they're worth the complexity or not.
Meanwhile everything that isn't explicitly covered by a patent needs to be proven to be 20 years old, and this limits MPEG too. Otherwise nobody can prove that there won't be any submarine patent that could be used to set up a competing patent pool and extort MPEG's customers.
So our latest-and-greatest codecs are built on 20-year-old ideas, with or without some bells and whistles added. The ASICs often don't use the bells and whistles anyway, because the extra coding features may not even be suitable for ASICs, and usually have diminishing returns (like 3x slower encode for 1% better quality/filesize ratio).
The only reason I can think of why you would say this is that nowadays we have good compiler infrastructure that works with many hardware architectures and it has become easy to create or modify compilers. But that's only due to the fact that it was so insanely complicated that it had to be redone from scratch to become generalizible, which led to LLVM and the subsequent direct and indirect benefits everywhere. That's the work of thousands of the smartest people over 30 years.
There is no way that a single company could develop a state of the art compiler without using an existing one. Intel had a good independent compiler and gave up because open source had become superior.
For what it's worth, look at the state of FPGA compilers. They are so difficult that every single one of them that exists is utter shit. I wish it were different.
Not only can they do it but some companies have done it several times. Look at Oracle: there's HotSpot's C2 compiler, and the Graal compiler. Both state of the art, both developed by one company.
Not unique. Microsoft and Apple have built many compilers alone over their lifespan.
This whole thing is insanely subjective, but that's why I'm making fun of the "unsubstantiated claim" bit. How exactly are you meant to objectively compare this?
The browsers are an interesting case. Neither Chrome nor Edge are really open source, despite Chromium being so, and they are both funded by advertising and marketing money from huge corporations. Safari is of course closed source. And Firefox is an increasingly tiny runner-up. So I don't know if I'd really count Chromium as a FLOSS success story.
Overall, I don't think FLOSS has had the kind of effect that many activists were going for. What has generally happened is that companies building software have realized that there is a lot of value to be found in treating FLOSS software as a kind of barter agreement between companies, where maybe Microsoft helps improve Linux for the benefit of all, but in turn it gets to use, say, Google's efforts on Chromium, and so on. The fact that other companies then get to mooch off of these big collaborations doesn't really matter compared to getting rid of the hassle of actually setting up explicit agreements with so many others.
The entire internet, end to end, runs on FLOSS.
It's still almost impossible to have a digital life that doesn't involve significant use of proprietary software, and the vast majority of users do their computing almost exclusively through proprietary software. The fact that this proprietary software is a bit of glue on top of a bunch of FLOSS libraries possibly running on a FLOSS kernel that uses FLOSS libraries to talk to a FLOSS router doesn't really buy much actual freedom for the end users. They're still locked in to the proprietary software vendors just as much as they were in the 90s (perhaps paying with their private data instead of actual money).
> This is still the argument for software copyright.
And open source licensing is based on and relies on copyright. Patents and copyright are different kinds of intellectual property protection and incentivize different things. Copyright in some sense encourages participation and collaboration because you retain ownership of your code. The way patents are used discourages participation and collaboration.
