If they were using the protocol, they have two options: 1. Roll their own implementation (highly discouraged). Increase their development burden. Introduce hig

If they were using the protocol, they have two options: 1. Roll their own implementation (highly discouraged). Increase their development burden. Introduce higher maintenance burden. Slightly more flexibility for app deployment. And run the risk of my company disallowing interoperable embedded commercial implementations out of security concerns for the users. Basically, at this point the company is better off not using the protocol. 2. Use our implementation (Hypergolix). Massively decrease development and maintenance burden. They now have an install dependency, though, so distribution is a bit more complicated. Significant reduction in time and money invested in the app. The critical point is this: with option 1, you're correct in that you don't know the protocol is in use, but it's extremely likely that they wouldn't be using it here, nor advertise that they were. With option two, you know that they are using it, because you have to manually install the application to run the protocol.